On the Hawaiiankingdom.info blog today July 29th there was an interesting story. In part:

On the way to Kipahulu, there’s a patch of ancient lo’i that have been brought back into production by local families, right next to the road (on “state” land, I think, but they don’t seem concerned whose land it is). Over the lo’i flies an upside down Hawaiian flag, which is a symbol of distress, and is commonly used by Hawaiian nationals to express the occupation of their country. The fellow who is the main coordinator of the lo’i restoration was there with his kids the other day when I drove by, and I stopped to talk story. I was curious to get his take on current events, so I asked him what he thought about the Akaka bill. I was surprised when he said he had never heard of it.

Now we took a bit of criticism on this same blog for the methodology and analysis of our recent polls on the Akaka Bill but this story makes the point. Far too many people in Hawaii have no idea what the Akaka Bill is, what it says, or what it will do. This is especially true on the mainland. As Dick Rowland noted recently in a Shoots article on Hawaiireporter.com:

The Honolulu Advertiser on July 14, 2005 used front page headlines, two articles, and the lead editorial to discuss the Akaka bill. In one article, Sen. Craig Thomas (R-WY) is quoted in answer to whether he was going to vote for it: “I need to talk and think and read more about it. I’m a little concerned about it in that it seems like – it’s quite a different thing than sovereignty of Indian tribes. I am undecided about it because I’m uninformed.”

People who live in Hawaii whose lives would be directly impacted have never heard of it. A Senator who is going to vote on the Bill admits being “uninformed” days before the vote is due to be taken. How wide does this ignorance spread? This is why the education campaign to get the truth out while there is still time.

The cloture vote will wait until after the August recess until September 6th. While some say that they have the votes to bring cloture it sure seems uncertain at this point. Then there will still be the floor debates. Plenty of time to educate the public on the facts of the bill.

Democracy Is Upside Down

Tuesday, July 19, 2005, from about 2:00 to about 3:10 PM, the US House Sub-Committee on Constitutional Issues met on the Akaka bill. Bruce Fein and Bill Burgess testified that the bill was unconstitutional. Hawaii Attorney General Mark Bennett represented the State of Hawaii, saying it was completely constitutional. Representative Ed Case (D) of Hawaii and Representative Neil Abercrombie (D) of Hawaii attended the hearing. Case said little, Abercrombie passed out macadamia nuts and leis and derided the ‘philosophers’ present. At the close of the deliberations, Bruce Fein approached Mark Bennett and offered to go to Hawaii and debate him, in public, regarding the Akaka bill. Bennett refused.

Please note this carefully: The government proponents of the Akaka bill explicitly and consistently do not want any genuine public discussion of the bill anywhere. But especially they want to avoid debate and discussion in Hawaii. They want the people of Hawaii kept uninformed while they lobby the U.S. Senate and House to pass a bill which would have enormous impact on every resident of our state.

We had a vote in 1959 regarding Hawaii’s statehood. Some 94% of our voters said yes after the matter was fully discussed and debated. In other words, people were informed and voiced their consent.

Now we have a Native Hawaiian governing authority to be imposed on the state with no public discussion and no vote of the people of Hawaii. Just to make the situation even more evil, our state administration strives to avoid discussion in Hawaii at all costs.

The recently completed GRIH poll of all households in Hawaii revealed that two out of three respondents opposed the Akaka bill. The response of the proponents is to redouble the lobbying in Washington, D.C.

This stands democracy on its head. Your thoughts and comments would be appreciated.

(ror)

Examine the logic of the governor in this piece. It is exactly the same as what is touted here for rail, the other guy pays. How true do you think that really is? There is a close analogy here. Instead of the rich stadium owners benefiting as in the article, in Honolulu it is the engineering companies, construction companies and the unions that will gain the most, at the expense of everyone else.

It looks increasingly as if the Akaka Bill is in serious trouble. First there was this story this morning and then the follow-up this afternoon. A delay on the bill could threaten to kill it.

Politicians and city planners don’t always know what they are doing when they condemn land for a “better” public use. It turns out, often as not, they make things worse and the taxpayer ends up footing the bill.

Ted Balaker of the Reason Foundation makes the following observation:

Recently the DOT examined net federal subsidies from 1990 to 2002 and found that highways and transit are worlds apart. For every thousand passenger miles, transit got $118 in subsidy. What kind of subsidy did highways get? Negative $2. In other words, highway users paid in more than they got back.

Look at total dollar amounts of subsidy and the story is the same. Urban transit drained Uncle Sam’s coffers by an average of more than $5 billion per year. Meanwhile, our highway system actually replenished those coffers by more than $7 billion per year.

He goes on to note that rail subsidizes the comparatively wealthy as opposed to the poor. This will be especially true here in Hawaii with the General Excise Tax surcharge to pay for rail. Not only this the huge amount of money required for rail usually puts a strain on the existing bus system as they compete for dollars. It would be a shame if TheBus system were destroyed because we embraced rail.

A developer is seeking the land where Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter’s home happens to be. The Lost Liberty Hotel would be built there and would contain the Just Desserts Cafe. Probably not what Justice Souter had in mind when he supported the Kelo v. New London decision.

Here is another article analyzing aspects of the Akaka Bill. The author, Brian McNicoll clearly explains the race-based nature of the bill.

Oddly, under the Akaka bill, race would be the only requirement for membership in this tribe. That means that anyone who can prove he or she is a direct lineal descendant of the aboriginal, indigenous native people who resided and “exercised sovereignty” in the Hawaiian Islands on or before Jan. 1, 1893, is in. It doesn’t matter if you live in Hawaii, if you’ve ever been to Hawaii or if you participate in the native Hawaiian culture in any way.

Ed Meese and Todd Gaziano have an excellent analysis of what is wrong with the Akaka Bill. One particularly astute observation stands out:

Second, no government organized under the United States Constitution may create another government that is exempted from part of the Constitution. Yet, this is what S. 147 purports to do by allowing the alleged new government to grant preferences and exempt itself from portions of the Bill of Rights as it sees fit.

Exempting the Native Hawaiian people from the Bill of Rights as the governing body sees fit is not progress for the Hawaiian people. How can having fewer rights be an improvement for the lot of the Native Hawaiian people? The answer is, it can’t.