Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Are Federal Lands A Way To Pay Off National Debt?
#1
I have suggested this before, but there are others starting to look at this prospect.  The Feds own 35% of all land in the US.  Some states have no control over most of their state, because they cannot take precedence over the Feds, and it does not sit well with them,......for good reason.

I suspect that the US will look a bit differently in another twenty years.  Most of this government land will most likely be in private hands, and that is actually for the better IMO. Just imagine all the tax revenue the western states, and some eastern states, such as Tennessee and north Carolina, will be able to realize from their having jurisdiction over what was once Federal land.

Quote:Federal Lands: Natural treasure or a way to pay off the National Debt?[/u]
April 14, 2010 | By Candace Kairies-Beatty
It might surprise you to hear that the Federal government owns 35% -- just about 650 million acres -- of the land mass of the United States.  Most of this land is intended for all citizens (and future grnerations) to use and enjoy, and includes all National Parks, National Monuments, National Forests, and National Wildlife Refuges.


On MSNBC'sHardball with Chris Matthews last Friday, Idaho gubernatorial candidate Rex Remmell said that the Federal government should not be able to set aside or protect any land and it should be up to individual states to decide what to do with land that falls within their boarders.  Part of Remmell's plan -- if elected governor -- would be to seek to return the control of all Federal lands in Idaho to the state.  He then proposes to lease or sell this land to private interests for development.  No more Craters of the Moon National Monument, and we could write off the Hagerman Fossil Beds National Monument, which are just someof the Federally owned areas in Idaho.  Then there are Idaho's National Forests.  About 40% of the land in Idaho is is forest land, 75% of which is owned and managed by the Federal government.  


Remmell's not alone in his quest to turn over Federally controlled land to the states.  Yup, that would mean Yellowstone National Park, Glacier National Park, the Grand Canyon, and so on all in the hands of individual states who would be able to sell or lease the land for development.  What do some with this viewpoint suggest?  Selling the land to the highest bidder and using the money for a variety of reasons, including paying off the National Debt or balancing state's budgets.  Utah's governor recently signed several bills designed to seize control of Federally held land in Utah, including the Kaiparowits plateau in Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, which would then potentially be opened up for the development of the vast coal resources in the area.


Perhaps these states no longer want the millions of dollars tourists spend annually to visit and enjoy these protected areas.


How is it that the Federal government owns all this land in the first place?  The issue is complex and beyond the scope of this blog, but it is worth mentioning President Theodore Roosevelt's role.  Teddy Roosevelt was a true conservationist; he believed we should protect natural areas and wisely use resources found in these areas.  He wanted to protect these areas from the private interests who would potentially exploit and degrade the land all in the name of profit.  During his presidency, Roosevelt set aside 200 million acres of forest land and gave control to the newly-created U.S. Forest Service to ensure sustained and efficient use of natural resources in these forests.  He established five National Parks, 51 National Wildlife Refuges and more than a dozen National Monuments.


Perhaps Roosevelt would suggest we find better ways to pay down our National Debt or cover state's budget shortfalls than selling off our natural treasures -- and the ability of future generations to enjoy these places -- to the highest bidder.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#2
Quote:Perhaps these states no longer want the millions of dollars tourists spend annually to visit and enjoy these protected areas.

Or maybe the states will do a better job at running these parks and it'll just get better. In any case, national parks are just part of the land that the feds stole from the states. Here in Arizona, Clinton stole several huge chunks of land during his administration, under the guise of protecting indian ruins. If anyone had bothered to actually check with the locals, they would have found out that the few ruins left were more closely protected by the locals than anything the feds did. All the feds really did was cut off access to the areas by the locals who actually went out and hiked/hunted the areas. I say turen the federal lands back over to the states. If they are truly making tourist money off them, and they are truly worth preserving, the states will take care of them.
Reply
#3
(08-04-2010, 10:23 AM)John L Wrote: I have suggested this before, but there are others starting to look at this prospect.  The Feds own 35% of all land in the US.  Some states have no control over most of their state, because they cannot take precedence over the Feds, and it does not sit well with them,......for good reason.

I suspect that the US will look a bit differently in another twenty years.  Most of this government land will most likely be in private hands, and that is actually for the better IMO. Just imagine all the tax revenue the western states, and some eastern states, such as Tennessee and north Carolina, will be able to realize from their having jurisdiction over what was once Federal land.

Quote:Federal Lands: Natural treasure or a way to pay off the National Debt?[/u]
April 14, 2010 | By Candace Kairies-Beatty
It might surprise you to hear that the Federal government owns 35% -- just about 650 million acres -- of the land mass of the United States.  Most of this land is intended for all citizens (and future generations) to use and enjoy, and includes all National Parks, National Monuments, National Forests, and National Wildlife Refuges.


On MSNBC'sHardball with Chris Matthews last Friday, Idaho gubernatorial candidate Rex Remmell said that the Federal government should not be able to set aside or protect any land and it should be up to individual states to decide what to do with land that falls within their boarders.  Part of Remmell's plan -- if elected governor -- would be to seek to return the control of all Federal lands in Idaho to the state.  He then proposes to lease or sell this land to private interests for development.  No more Craters of the Moon National Monument, and we could write off the Hagerman Fossil Beds National Monument, which are just someof the Federally owned areas in Idaho.  Then there are Idaho's National Forests.  About 40% of the land in Idaho is is forest land, 75% of which is owned and managed by the Federal government.  


Remmell's not alone in his quest to turn over Federally controlled land to the states.  Yup, that would mean Yellowstone National Park, Glacier National Park, the Grand Canyon, and so on all in the hands of individual states who would be able to sell or lease the land for development.  What do some with this viewpoint suggest?  Selling the land to the highest bidder and using the money for a variety of reasons, including paying off the National Debt or balancing state's budgets.  Utah's governor recently signed several bills designed to seize control of Federally held land in Utah, including the Kaiparowits plateau in Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, which would then potentially be opened up for the development of the vast coal resources in the area.


Perhaps these states no longer want the millions of dollars tourists spend annually to visit and enjoy these protected areas.


How is it that the Federal government owns all this land in the first place?  The issue is complex and beyond the scope of this blog, but it is worth mentioning President Theodore Roosevelt's role.  Teddy Roosevelt was a true conservationist; he believed we should protect natural areas and wisely use resources found in these areas.  He wanted to protect these areas from the private interests who would potentially exploit and degrade the land all in the name of profit.  During his presidency, Roosevelt set aside 200 million acres of forest land and gave control to the newly-created U.S. Forest Service to ensure sustained and efficient use of natural resources in these forests.  He established five National Parks, 51 National Wildlife Refuges and more than a dozen National Monuments.


Perhaps Roosevelt would suggest we find better ways to pay down our National Debt or cover state's budget shortfalls than selling off our natural treasures -- and the ability of future generations to enjoy these places -- to the highest bidder.

"...The issue is complex and beyond the scope of this blog..."

The issue of the Escalante Staircase is not complex. It was stolen by Clinton to put the clean-burning coal deposits in Utah out of reach, so that his fundraising pals, the Riaddy's, who owned the only other clean burning coal sources, would benefit. At the time, The area taken into  the Fed Park program was touted as protecting historical sites, yet many historical sites were missed, but not the coal sources. Also, Clinton did this without any
discussion with the States involved.

Today, Drudge posted that Trump is returning much of the land grabbed by the bureaucrats: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...ument.html, Great!
Reply
#4
What surprises me most is that Utah didn't sue the Feds for stealing their land from them. Clearly all this is unconstitutional, if we follow the original constitution. It would be interesting to see what would happen if a state actually took their land back and ran off all the federal workers there.

This entire thing got started by............you guessed it, a Progressive. In fact it was our first Progressive president: Teddy Roosevelt. Progressives just love to steal from others and grow the size of the State.

I would love to see all of the affected states sue the federal government in order to see all of their stolen lands reclaimed.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#5
Teddy Roosevelt is often cited as the first Progressive - but that title really resides with Andrew Jackson - the President who stole the Indian lands and became rich by claiming and selling most of the land for himself. Teddy was wrong in grabbing off land, but his heart really was in protecting the land, not in turning a profit. Jackson was 19 Presidents before Teddy. Jackson was the originator of the Democrat Party, so today's Dems like to downplay his legacy to them.

Teddy Roosevelt was wrong in land grabs, but in his defense, he actually believed in doing good because it was good, rather than profitable. In his era, almost all of the country was empty and unclaimed, and his idea to set aside land for future generations was far different than the Trail of Tears.
Reply
#6
(12-05-2017, 04:13 PM)WmLambert Wrote: Jackson was the originator of the Democrat Party, so today's Dems like to downplay his legacy to them.

For accuracy's sake, let me state that Jackson was really the originator of a huge mob of unorganized followers. It was not until Martin Van Buren linked up with him, and actually formed/set-up the party, that it really became an official party.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#7
According to D'Souza: "...Jackson established the Democratic Party as the party of theft.  He mastered the art of stealing land from the Indians and then selling it at giveaway prices to white settlers.  Jackson’s expectation was that those people would support him politically, as indeed they did.  Jackson was indeed a 'man of the people,' but his popularity was that of a gang leader who distributes his spoils in exchange for loyalty on the part of those who benefit from his crimes.

Jackson also figured out how to benefit personally from his land-stealing.  Like Hillary Clinton, he started out broke and then became one of the richest people in the country.  How?  Jackson and his partners and cronies made early bids on Indian land, sometimes even before the Indians had been evacuated from that land.  They acquired the land for little or nothing and later sold it for a handsome profit.  Remarkably, the roots of the Clinton Foundation can be found in the land-stealing policies of America’s first Democratic president."

It's not about Van Buren setting up the party apparatus, it's the act of stealing to get rich that formed the paradigm for the party.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  U.S. National Debt Clock (and other clocks)-- running time Ron Lambert 0 345 09-01-2012, 03:37 PM
Last Post: Ron Lambert
  National Debt "road trip" JohnWho 8 1,324 09-02-2009, 05:56 PM
Last Post: jt

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)