A WEEKLY COMMENTARY
Year Twenty-One ... Number Thirty-Five ... August 30, 1974
THE CONTRIVED EVOLUTION
OF REGIONAL GOVERNMENT
PART EIGHTEEN
ACHIEVING NATIONAL GOALS
In a Communist country such as Russia or Mainland China, or wherever an absolute dictatorship exists, the business of setting up national goals that are to be achieved at some future date, is a comparatively simple procedure. This does not mean that the goals are going to be attained, usually they are not. But putting the plan into operation is simple: The Big Bosses get together, decide upon what they want to come to pass, draw up a program that will supposedly bring about what is desired, publish the package and call it a New Five Year Plan -- and the bureaucrats and the people will follow instructions -- or else.
However, in a "participatory democracy," such as ours (that's what our former representative republic has become, they tell us), things are a bit more complicated. Here there must be more publicity, more fanfare, persuasion and education, more carrots and fewer clubs. Of course, things are the same up to a point: Here, too, the Big Bosses get together and make the decisions, have their underlings draw up the plans, etc. But then they launch a crusade, a propaganda drive in order to convince the people that they, the people, know what's going on, are in favor of what's going on, and demand that the Big Bosses' plans be put into effect.
That's participatory democracy, as opposed to the hard-line socialism of Russia and China. You will already have understood, of course, that participatory democracy is just a synonym for Fabian Socialism. And here is a current and pertinent example of how it is used to promote Regional Governance in these United States:
Although 1313 and its allies and satellites have been preaching the gospel of Metro and Regionalism for nearly a quarter of a century the people are not yet convinced that it's a smart idea to toss out all the old forms and adopt this new federalism in their place. So the Big Bosses have decided that some "participatory democracy" is required. Now, whenever an "educational crusade" is needed, there is one army of propaganda propagators that has proved its worth to the Big Bosses time after time. We refer to the League of Women Voters. And the following, from The New York Times of September 1, 1974, needs no further explanation:
Washington, Aug. 31 (AP) -- A new study by the League of Women Voters Education Fund says that urban governments around the country are malfunctioning and "ripe for reform" but not quite ready to rush into improvements. The study, published under the title "Supercity, Hometown, U.S.A. Prospects for Two-Tier Government," concludes that current attacks on problems of urban government are piecemeal and hamstrung by antiquated political machinery devised when the country was chiefly rural.
Metropolitan areas are composed of too many governments, the study says, while none actually have the scope or authority to deal with problems adequately. The league's study finds that a majority of both citizens and government officials support the suggested solutions of two-tier government but are cautious. The two-tier government provides a broad central government, such as a metropolitan government covering an entire county, coupled with sub-governments covering neighborhoods or smaller communities within the larger governed unit.
The foregoing report about the work of the League of Women Voters in regard to Metro and Regionalism, is an excellent example of how pre-conceived plans handed down by the Big Bosses as "National Goals" are promoted at the local level. However, before proceeding, we should be a bit more explicit about those Big Bosses:
Back in the 1950s, when Regional Governance began to be installed, there was a "Goals For Americans" Committee which was composed primarily of Rockefeller underlings, CFR members and 1313 agents. Some of those proposed "National Goals" were adopted, some set aside for future action. Then in 1969, when Richard Nixon was still on the Rockefeller team, the President established within the White House a "National Goals Research Staff," directed by Leonard Garment and with Daniel P. Moynihan acting as Counsellor to the President and authoring the report, which was submitted on July 4, 1970. This particular National Goals report was titled "Toward Balanced Growth: Quantity with Quality," and was primarily an argument for the establishment of PPBS on a national scale, along with the need for "Regionalizing" the USA. A few brief quotes from the report should be sufficient:
"Social data ... becomes indispensable to meeting the principle of accountability. There is no serious way for the Nation to know whether the (goals) are attained unless there is a steady, readily accessible, and understandable flow of information as to the actual results, which is to say the outputs, of government programs. In this respect, one of the most important legislative measures in American history was the Budget and Accounting Act of June 10, 1921, which established the Bureau of the Budget and the General Accounting Office (italics added)."
" ...The art of national goal setting, then, is to be realistic about what can be attained, and to use social data in such a way as to enable both the expert and lay publics to understand that progress toward any seriously difficult goal is going to take place by increments ... "
"New tools and techniques have been developed to help make the complex comprehensible: for example, computerized information systems .... "
"Last year, the National Governors' Conference (1313-Ed.) resolved to petition the Congress to ... provide a sense of direction in Federal planning and in Federal programs which would seek to alleviate the growing national frustration that is occurring in overpopulated areas and in areas which are now losing population. Similarly, the National League of Cities (also 1313-Ed.), called for a specific policy for the settlement of people throughout the nation to balance the concentration of population among and within metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas while providing social and economic opportunities for all persons."
More recently: Nelson Rockefeller quit his host as Governor of New York, to create a "National Commission on the Future of America in its Third Century." In other words, another National Goals Commission!
Here are startling coincidences: Rockefeller announced the creation of his new Goals Commission from the White House, Jerry Ford was named a member of the new Rockefeller Commission, shortly thereafter Ford was appointed (not elected) Vice President of the United States, and then after a brief delay Nelson Rockefeller was appointed (not elected) Vice President of the United States as his friend Jerry succeeded to the Presidency (by appointment).
So much for the nonce about the way the Big Bosses operate. Now let us shift our attention to the local arena, and here we find the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR) laying down the rules for the development of that program that is being promoted and popularized by the League of Women Voters.
We have a copy of a rather lengthy directive issued about a year ago by ACIR. So you'll know exactly what ACIR has in mind for your area, we shall quote at length from that directive:
The Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations adopted five recommendations at its June 22-23 meeting in San Francisco which endorse a concerted, Federal-State-local strategy for bringing greater order, accountability, and sense of direction to more than 250 metropolitan regions and practically all rural areas.
A comprehensive 18-month Commission study of substate regions shows that this Nation faces a major problem regarding proliferating districts in urban and rural areas -- especially at that new but active level above cities and counties but below the States -- the substate regional level. Most of these districting developments have emerged over the past decade because of combined Federal-State-local efforts to treat areawide problems in an areawide context. What has been missing in all but a handful of cases, however, is a regional unit with the capacity to link areawide planning with program implementation, to coordinate the diverse activities of separate districts having single-function planning and operation responsibilities -- in short, to serve as an effective regional decision-maker.
In these substate areas, the country now confronts the dilemma of sorting out the roles, responsibilities and relationships between and among towns, cities and counties; over 600 regional councils of government dominated by city and county spokesmen; nearly 25,000 special districts and authorities ... approximately 1,800 Federally encouraged regional districts under 19 grant programs; ... and 488 substate districts in 40 States officially sponsoring this regional system (as of 1972).
A typical metropolitan area is made up of 90 units including general and special purpose local governments, Federally encouraged districts (not governments), and a regional council or planning agency. These include:
To coordinate these diverse bodies and develop an effective decision-making mechanism at the substate level, the Commission adopted a strategy building on areawide units -- councils of government and regional planning commissions -- that now exist in all metropolitan areas and over 300 non-metropolitan areas as well as on substate districting systems already instituted by 44 States. This strategy emerges from the five recommendations adopted by ACIR in San Francisco. Commission staff will now develop draft legislation to help individual States and the Federal government implement the plan. The following analysis describes the regional bodies that would result from adoption of the Commission's strategy.
Basically, ACIR envisions a multi-jurisdictional organization composed mostly of local general government officials, with some State representatives. It would have policy control over all areawide planning, programming and policy development programs in its region along with comparable authority over the actions of multi-jurisdictional special districts. This body also would have the capacity to resolve conflicts between certain State agency and local governmental actions having an areawide impact on the one hand, and officially adopted regional plans and policies, on the other ....
The council would:
This reformed regional council would be a comprehensive and functional planning, coordinating, programmining, servicing and implementing body.
mix of Federal-State-local actions are recommended to provide the council with the arsenal of powers needed to help guide substate regional development.
The proposed council would become the preferred implementing instrumentality for Federally encouraged districting programs under State legislation establishing a comprehensive substate districting system and promulgation of a new OMB directive covering all Federally assisted programs having a regional thrust ....
The council would be assigned special review authority over State agency actions having a regional impact ....
In addition, the council would have its officially adopted regional policies or plans recognized as guides for pertinent local governmental programming, planning and implementation activities, pursuant to proposed action by the governing bodies of such jurisdictions.
With these powers conferred by Federal-State-local actions, the revitalized regional council could speak with authority ....
ACIR's strategy for reforming regional councils is not an idealized dream of regionalism, but is rooted in the real world of substate development.
To conclude, the Commission's proposed reforms for regional councils rely heavily on the building blocks already in place at the substate level. But they go well beyond the status quo in their systematic effort to provide an effective umbrella unit that can cope with the growing demand for better management, coordination, implementation-in short, decision-makingin those programs and institutions that are areawide in nature. (End of ACIR Staff Analysis)
ACIR is confident that Regionalism is here to stay, as the foregoing analysis asserts. Regionalism, more accurately identified as a corporate state, is promoted at municipal, county, State and Federal levels of government, aided and abetted by elected officials. Government leaders are no longer responsive to the will of the people; they have become mere implementing agents for programs promulgated by and for the dictating oligarchy of which the Rockefeller dynasty is a principal part, now having captured the White House itself!
Not only is Regionalism the new American form of government; it is the new form of World Government, as we shall see in our next letter in this series.
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