Interior must practice what it preaches

By
|
Posted on Jan 28 1999
Share

I understand that there’s a certain project on Midway Island under the direct supervision of the US Department of Interior. It employs alien workers from the Philippines, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. It would be very interesting to find out if Interior pays its alien workers US federal minimum wage. If not, I’d like to know its justification for the differential. I have that strange feeling that Interior has screwed up royally on this point. Yeap, it must be the old TTG mentality of saying one thing while doing the exact opposite. Woe!

This lead federal agency is mandated by law (as per Section 701 of the Covenant Agreement) to “assist” the NMI “in its efforts to achieve a progressively higher standard of living for its people as part of the American economic community and to develop the economic resources needed to meet the financial responsibilities of local self-government”. Has Interior done this in recent years or has it taken the role of an adversary to blindly and forcibly bring wealth and jobs creation to its knees?

It doesn’t take a genius to discern that Interior’s agenda is regressive in every sense of the word. Furthermore, most of our detractors won’t be around to suffer the consequence of their ruinous policy. But we will be here to endure this infamous US Department of Interior experiment that will render the local government incapable of supporting itself. Thus, unemployment will skyrocket as families struggle to find means to provide for their basic needs. Imagine what happens if the 300-400 high school graduates who march of our schools annually are met with instant joblessness and helplessness. Would Interior’s local office put them on its payroll? Louder, please?

In recent years, Interior’s Allen Stayman complained of the number of locals who were unemployed. It was a warped concoction to illustrate that the garment industry hasn’t benefited the indigenous people in terms of economic opportunities or employment. Well, take a closer look in that this sector has provided good jobs for retirees and others who can’t fit in the government payroll. But let’s assume that Stayman’s agenda to force the closure of the garment industry here succeeds. Hey, over 3,000 people would be jobless almost instantly ready to line up at the Nutrition Assistance Program (food stamps office) for their share of coupons. Is this the ultimate goal of Interior’s OIA? Is this its vision of helping the NMI achieve a higher standard of living?

If this is its obvious program, why didn’t Interior said so from the outset so that we can insist that the NMI be given all the federal hand-outs that now benefit our Hawaiian brothers and sisters? I mean, the welfare program in Hawaii is such that you earn more than $36,000 year, live in a federally provided shelter, drive a nice car, get freebies from any grocery store, and still play several rounds of golf every week. Eh, the Hawaii welfare version is a better option in terms of raking-in what industrious Americans have worked for so that we as “royal savages’ can wine and dine.

Sure, Hawaii recently announced a reduction in the number of welfare recipients. But I’ve spent time with my Kanaka brothers who are permanent beneficiaries of Uncle Tom’s generous welfare programs. I was salivating at the relative ease displaced indigenous people are fed freebies from Uncle Tom to their detriment. Maybe this is the quiet agenda of the US Department of Interior. Or perhaps this is Stayman’s reinvented version of the so-called “American Dream”.

Finally, I find conflicting positions in what Interior proposes versus that of the president’s “Welfare to Work” program. Does the White House wary of Interior’s violative agenda? Or would this be shoved aside because we live at the fringe of mainstream America?

Disclaimer: Comments are moderated. They will not appear immediately or even on the same day. Comments should be related to the topic. Off-topic comments would be deleted. Profanities are not allowed. Comments that are potentially libelous, inflammatory, or slanderous would be deleted.