MAP COMPACTING FIFTY SOVEREIGN STATES INTO TEN FEDERAL REGIONS
Per, "Statement by the President on Restructuring of Government Service Systems," 27 Mar 1969, and
Executive Order #11647, "The Federal Regional Councils," 12 February, 1972.
A WEEKLY COMMENTARY
Year Twenty-One ... Number Thirty-Four ... August 23, 1974
THE CONTRIVED EVOLUTION
OF REGIONAL GOVERNMENT
PART SEVENTEEN
SUBSTATE REGIONALISM IN
THE NEW FEDERAL SYSTEM
That socialistic form of control that is called Regional Governance took a giant step forward in the United States with the passage of the Area Redevelopment Act of 1965. According to the terms of this legislation, any State or any "distressed" area of any State wanting federal assistance, was required to prepare and submit to the proper agency in Washington, an "Overall Economic Development Plan," and to set up a Regional Planning Commission to carry out the program once it had been approved by the Central Authority. Any State or area thereof that was not conversant with the procedures required for the drawing up and submitting of plans, or filling out the proper forms, etc., need merely apply to 1313's Public Administration Service, and expert assistance would be forthcoming and federal financing would be assured.
However, it was the Economic Development Act of 1965 that succeeded in popularizing Regional Planning Commissions. Title V of this Act provided for the establishment of Multi-State Regional Commissions. The first of these to combine more than one State in a Regional Development Program was the Appalachian Regional Development Plan. This was a part of President Johnson's War on Poverty, but LBJ had a little difficulty in putting this one across. The appropriation required for launching the Appalachian Program required Congressional consent.
Congress balked at approving such an expenditure for just one section of the country. So, LBJ held out a carrot -- he promised the Congressmen and Senators that if they would approve the Appalachian Regional Commission, then they could have a Regional Commission for their own District! It worked; LBJ's famed "art of compromise" brought about the Appalachian Regional Commission, the New England Regional Commission, the Coastal Plains Regional Commission, the Upper Great Lakes Regional Commission, the Ozarks Regional Commission, the Four Comers Regional Commission (New Mexico, Arizona, Utah and Colorado), the Old West Regional Commission, and the Pacific Northwest Regional Commission -- eight in all and all of them still in existence and competing for funds with the Ten Federal Regional Districts that would be established a few years later!
Former President Nixon usually gets the blame (or the praise if one is a Socialist) for having installed Regional Governance in the United States; but it was President Johnson who began the actual work. In a memorandum dated Sept. 2, 1966, President Johnson directed the Bureau of the Budget (now the Office of Management and Budget) to coordinate at the Federal Level, all Regional Planning in the Nation. As a result, the Director of BOB (now OMB) issued circular A-80. According to Rep. Nelson Pryor of Berlin, New Hampshire, 1313 then got into the act in this manner: Governor John Love of Colorado, at that time Chairman of the National Governor's Conference Committee on State Planning (1313), wrote to the Governors of all States urging them to comply with BOB's Circular A-80, and establish State Regional Planning Commissions!
Later, July 24, 1969, Circular A-95 was issued. Briefly, this gives the federal executive the right to establish rules and regulations governing regional projects, and also gives federal agents the power to veto local plans and programs whenever any federal funding is involved. Thus "home rule" is abolished and this power is taken from the people and redelegated to regional chiefs who are appointed by Washington.
Then, on March 27, 1969, under the authority of the Executive Re-Organization Act of 1949, President Richard M. Nixon told the American people, by means of one of his rare press conferences, that the United States was being divided into eight federal regions. After that announcement there was a flurry of jealous protest from some of the cities that had not been chosen as Regional Capitals, and Nixon revised his order to provide for Ten Federal Regions, as illustrated in the accompanying map.
By Executive Order 11647 of February 12, 1972 and Executive Order 11731 of July 25, 1973, the process had been completed: Each of the ten federal regions would have a Governing Regional Council composed of appointed administrators from each of the following departments or agencies: Department of Transportation, Office of Economic Opportunity; Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Department of Agriculture, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Department of Labor, Environmental Protection Agency, Department of the Interior, and the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration; and with the Office of Management and Budget in overall charge of the entire operation.
It was with the establishment of these Ten Federal Regions that the program of ACIR and 1313 was changed from one of setting up Metros, Megalopoli and Ecumenopoli to one of creating Sub-State Regions within the Ten Federal Regions that had been ordered into existence by Executive Orders.
First, however, we must go back in time and pick up yet another strand that has been woven into the Regional Blanket that is smothering the Republic:
In previous letters we have explained how 1313 was established with Rockefeller money on Rockefeller property at 1313 East 60th St., Chicago, and how 1313 was designed to do at the domestic level what its companion organization, the Council on Foreign Relations, was created to accomplish at the foreign level. 1313 worked with State, County, Municipal and local governments; but the time came when it was felt that a more direct tie-in with the Federal Administration was needed. Consequently, there was created, in 1959, the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. From this time on, we begin to hear more of ACIR and less of 1313, since ACIR now is the official "front" and mouthpiece of 1313.
"The system" used by ACIR is partially explained in one of its publications, which tells us that:
"Commission recommendations for State action are translated into draft bills and proposed Constitutional amendments which constitute ACIR's State Legislative Programs. The proposals have been made available in separate 'slip bill' form . They are brought to the attention of key legislative and executive officials of all the States, as well as other interstate groups and individuals." After ACIR began to function, and the PPBS management and budget control system had been forced upon every federal administrative department, then came the division of the Nation into Ten Federal Regions, and the ensuing campaign to force all States to likewise divide themselves into Sub-State Regions.
The following is taken from an official publication of the ACIR, and is self-explanatory:
The Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR) was created by Congress in 1959 to monitor the operation of the American federal system and to recommend improvements. ACIR is a permanent national bipartisan body representing the executive and the legislative branches of Federal, State and local government and the public.
Of the 26 Commission members, nine represent the Federal government, 14 represent State and local governments and three represent the general public. Twenty members are appointed by the President. He names three private citizens and three Federal executive officials directly and selects four Governors, three State legislators, four mayors and three elected county officials from slates nominated, respectively, by the National Governors' Conference, the Council of State Governments, the National League of Cities/U .S. Conference of Mayors, and the National Association of Counties (all are 1313 organizations-Ed.). The other six are Members of Congress-three Senators appointed by the President of the Senate and three Representatives appointed by the Speaker of the House.
Commission members serve a two-year term and may be reappointed. The Commission names an Executive Director who heads a small professional staff.
After selecting specific intergovernmental issues for investigation, ACIR follows a multi-step procedure that assures review and comment by representatives of all points of view, all affected levels of government, technical experts and interested groups. The Commission then debates each issue and formulates its policy positions. Commission findings and recommendations are published and draft bills and executive orders are developed to assist in implementing ACIR policies." (End of Statement)
A petition protesting the activities and the very existence of ACIR was prepared and presented to Congress by Statewide Committees Opposing Regional Plan Areas (SCORPA). The petition charged that ACIR is unconstitutional since Senators and Congressmen serve on its 26-member commission and the Constitution clearly states, in Article I, Section 6 (2), that: "No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he is elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States."
Further objections: ACIR is controlled by 1313, "a syndicate of like-minded affiliates and adjuncts linked by interlocking directorates and/or common purpose ....;
"ACIR operates a 'law factory' and distributes pre-packaged legislation throughout federal, state and local governments, preempting the right of citizens to form their own laws through their representatives elected for that purpose ... ;
"The very existence of ACIR's federal-state-local collusion is a violation of both the word and the meaning of our, Federal Constitution and the 50 State Constitutions .... ;
"ACIR promotes an implacable drive to eradicate local and State governments under its concept of Regional Governance, etc., etc."
From various ACIR reports and publications, we have gleaned the following pertinent information:
ACIR organization covers three major areas:
ACIR devotes a major -- and growing -- proportion of time and resources to encouraging the implementation of the recommendations it makes to the legislative and executive branches of Federal, State, and local government.
Legislation to implement ACIR recommendations to Congress is usually introduced by United States Senators and Representatives who are members of the Commission.
The Council of State Governments includes most ACIR bills in its annual volume of "Suggested State Legislation" (copies of which volume of "mail order legislation" are sent to all important officials of every State for suggested State action-Ed.)
Attempts by the States to modernize their basic charters (State Constitutions) and to revamp the structure and organization of their governmental branches are basic ingredients of the continuing drive to put more muscle in federalism's frame (emphasis added).
The Commission and its key staff members submitted statements and testified before House and Senate committees on legislation of vital interest to federalism.
The creative partnership between Federal, State and local governments in responding effectively to old and new social, economic and developmental needs in urban and rural America can only flounder unless antiquated State Constitutional provisions are revised.
It should be noted that these Substate Regions that ACIR promotes are federally controlled if a single cent of federal money is involved in the project. This is brought about through the application of the provisions contained in that Circular A-95 which was previously mentioned in this letter. Under ACIR's official "Glossary of terms," there is given the following definition:
[xxxx] An areawide comprehensive planning organization or State agency recognized by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to notify other affected local or State governmental units of propose Federal-aid or direct Federal projects before they are funded, and to perform reviews of such projects and comment upon them as to their constituency with areawide or State policies. This process is established by OMB Circular A-95, pursuant to Section 204 of the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966 and Title IV of the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968."
Translated into common English:
Any State or local agency desiring Federal assistance
on a development project, must notify a
"clearing house" of its intentions, furnishing a
description of the project and other pertinent
information. If the clearing house approves, then
the request is forwarded to OMB for final action.
If OMB approves, the project is coordinated
with and made to conform to the computerized
Planning, Programming, Budgeting System, by
which all programs in which the federal government
has any part, are managed and controlled.
If the local project does not fit in with the long-range
Planning for the Region, if it does not
conform to "piggyback" Programming in the
area, then the Budgeting of the project is denied.
In more formal language, a bulletin issued by
OMB to all executive departments and establishments
states:
"The principal objective of PPB (Planning, Programming and Budgeting-Ed.) is to improve the basis for major program decisions in the operating agencies and in the Executive Office of the President. This requires clear statements of alternatives and of the reasons for decisions. Program objectives are to be identified and alternative methods of meeting them are to be subjected to systematic comparison. Data are to be organized on the basis of programs, and are to reflect the future as well as current implications of decisions. As in the case of budgeting, planning and programming apply not only to current programs but to proposals involving new legislation.
"The budget is the financial expression of the underlying program plan. Review by the Bureau (OMB) is conducted primarily in program terms. It is essential that the products of the PPB System -- the Program Memoranda, Special Analytic Studies, and Program and Financial Plans -- provide adequate bases for program decisions."
At the local level, it is the job of the clearing house to see to it that the local project fits in with all other projects in the area or Region; and OMB then determines that the project is in accord with overall long-range planning for the Region.
According to ACIR, there are three types of planning and developing clearing houses below the Multi-State Federal Regional level:
"As of April, 1973," says an ACIR publication, "53 State clearinghouses existed (including the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and American Samoa). Of the 212 metropolitan clearinghouses, 185 were intrastate and 27 were interstate, while only one of the 238 regional clearinghouses was interstate. The 450 substate and multistate clearinghouses in the United States covered over 2,000 counties, in which an estimated 88 percent of the nation's population lived."
Why these clearinghouses? According to ACIR:
"OMB's objective, then, is to provide the opportunity for achieving greater interlocal and intergovernmental cooperation in the long run and better coordination of specific State and substate planning and development activities in the short run. According to Dwight Ink (an ACIR Planner): 'A-95, in effect, forces people who should be talking to each other to talk to each other. Communication is fundamental to coordination. It has been our modest expectation that the intergovernmental dialogues contrived by A-95 would lead State and local governments to an identification of common interest which quite possibly, would stimulate common enterprises and perhaps even continuing systematic cooperation .... In short, we view A-95 and the laws on which it is based as institution building mechanisms-and institution building is a long term enterprise'."
In plainer language: A-95 forces everybody to obey OMB's PPB System, which is a long term enterprise aiming at a Total Managed Global Society. And there is not yet complete coordination at local levels because those OMB clearinghouses at present have control over only those development projects where some federal money is involved.
DON BELL REPORTS & CLOSER-UP are privately circulated Newsletters accenting the Christian American point of view. Complete service: $24 per year. Extra copies: 10 cents each. Please address all orders to: DON BELL REPORTS, P.O. Box 2223, Palm Beach, Florida 33480