"Strange bedfellows make interesting children." This observation from Don Snow, Arts and Literary Director of Gallatin Institute, applies to the recently released "Green Scissors" report. The report originated from a hitherto latent coalition of environmentalists and pro-market advocates.

On the one side, we have Rep. Kasich (R-OH), a "Gingrich acolyte." On the other is Ralph Nader, consumer advocate and "Green Party" presidential candidate. They have joined forces with fiscal conservatives, anti-corporation liberals, libertarians, and environmentalists. Heads turn when Friends of the Earth, Taxpayers for Common $ense, U.S. PIRG, and Citizens Against Government Waste unite.

What brings together such historically bitter enemies? They call it the "Green Scissors" project, an attempt to identify and oppose the most flagrant examples of government plundering our pocketbooks and environment. Green Scissors supporters hope to cut out enormously expensive and environmentally destructive federal projects.

This new spirit of cooperation in Washington, DC finds common ground in ending welfare for the well off (in other words, subsidies to politically-connected corporations and organized special interests). A bi-partisan "Stop Corporate Welfare" commission has $75 billion to cut from the annual budget, according to the libertarian Cato Institute. When they cut spending, they'll also help stop the subsidies which encourage environmental degradation.

Possibly the worst offender, ethanol subsidies, is a perfect example of this. Archers Daniels Midland Co., primary producer of economically and environmentally suspect ethanol, receives millions annually in tax breaks and other government concessions. Every $1 in ADM profits from ethanol cost taxpayers more than $30. It also means plowing more corn fields, burning more fuel, and wasting resources that could go towards other environmental cleanups. In return, ADM donates generously to political campaigns. Bob Dole, a long-time recipient of ADM's "charity," proclaimed himself "Senator Ethanol."

If Green Scissors succeeds in cutting corporate welfare it must overcome Cato analyst Stephen Moore's observation, "It always turns out to be someone else's pork they want to cut." If the coalition is strong enough, we might soon see the end of the US Department of Agriculture's "Market Access Program," a welfare program supporting television ads of impoverished giants like Miller Brewing Company and McDonalds. We may see the demise of the Animas-La Plata dam project, one of the last grand Bureau of Reclamation welfare projects for big agriculture. The BuRec's latest dam would replace a river system with an irrigation system to benefit corporate farmers at a taxpayer cost of $400 million.

Forest Service road-building may also dead end. To facilitate timber harvesting, the Forest Service has created a network of forest roads equalling nine times the entire Interstate Highway System (i.e., I-5, I-90, etc.). Federal highway "pilot projects" may hit a similar road bump if Green Scissors can cut the pork.

The Green Scissors' strength derives from its being a "natural" coalition. It promotes complementary goals: environmental quality and attacks on corporate subsidies. Nearly all citizens support these in principle. Conservatives and libertarians oppose the government spending, liberals oppose welfare for the well off, and conservationists oppose destructive projects. It is a natural fit, especially since many conservatives are conservationists, etc.

Green Scissors also marks an important, "natural" progression in the evolution of our political economy. It is no accident that these disparate groups are finding a common cause in Green Scissors. It is a natural reaction to increasingly "unnatural" and inefficient federal programs. Inefficiency is often eroded by evolutionary forces relentlessly pressuring against such waste.

Green Scissors targets grossly uneconomical and ecologically inappropriate programs, such as subsidies to cotton growers in California, sugar growers in Florida's swamps, dam building in China, and aid to the Bonneville Power Administration. Their genesis and maintenance come from human, political artifice. Ending these "unnatural" programs outright would bring budget savings and environmental improvement. Actuarially unsound, subsidized federal flood insurance, for example, encourages homeowners to build in flood plains at great public expense.

In all these cases, political opportunism fosters waste. It encourages activities individuals would avoid if free to act but responsible for the outcome of their actions.

These unnatural programs harm the environment and society. For example, subsidized irrigation runs turbines which generate electricity which farmers in the Columbia basin sell at full market price. It takes considerable effort to keep a lid on such travesties of justice and violations of efficiency. The good news is that ever more people understand the degradation and waste that's taking place. Further, they understand this is the predictable consequence of political management.

Thus, the Green Scissors campaign forms a "natural" coalition to eliminate inefficiency. It's all part of a new environmentalism, a shade of green that's in the black. This is a natural evolution, and we'll be seeing more of it.