WASHINGTON — Congressman Earl Blumenauer (D-Portland) on Wednesday introduced a bill that would prevent taxpayers from paying the high cost of the month-long Oregon refuge occupation and place the burden on the armed group of protesters. The occupation has cost state and local law enforcement an estimated $100,000 per week, said Blumenauer’s spokeswoman in a news release. The bill would allow the U.S. Department of Justice to quickly reimburse law enforcement for the costs, and then allow the U.S. Attorney General to bring a civil suit against the occupiers to recover the government’s cost…. “When we talk in trillions here in Washington D.C., maybe talk of $100,000 here or a million dollars there doesn’t sound like very much, but to the state of Oregon, it matters, Blumenauer said on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives. “For this small community, a few hundred thousand dollars has a significant impact on the local taxpayer. They shouldn’t be made to pay the bill.”
For close to a month, The Gang That Couldn’t Remember To Bring Snacks © was allowed to occupy the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in southeastern Oregon. During that time, they damaged and destroyed public property and generally acted as if they were within their rights to do so. Combine the cost of the damage done with that of the law enforcement presence, and some estimates have put the cost of the occupation at upwards of $100,000 per day. Whatever the actual number may be, there’s little doubt but that taxpayers are on the hook for a significant chunk of change.
I don’t know if (or what) legal precedent may or may not exist for requiring the occupiers to reimburse taxpayers, but it would certainly seem the right thing to do. Criminals- which is what The Gang That Couldn’t Remember To Bring Snacks © are- shouldn’t be allowed to get away with foisting the cost of their illegal activities onto taxpayers. There’s a very simple concept that should apply here:
“You break it, you buy it.”
If nothing else, being able to hold the occupiers criminally AND financially liable might send a message to others similarly inclined. Whether that would serve as a deterrent is difficult to say, but it’s worth a try, no?
