• Don't miss out on all the fun! Register on our forums to post and have added features! Membership levels include a FREE membership tier.

So this is how low politicians have sunk to cover their asses over needless spending?

Dogmeat

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Premium Member
Feb 1, 2006
5,344
1,487
113
Castle Rock, CO
http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=15596999

SALT LAKE CITY — Should the U.S. government sell off Utah to help deal with the federal deficit? What about the federal lands here? A Florida congressman’s quote is drawing fire in the blogosphere, but his bigger-picture message is gaining traction even with Utah leaders.


Rep. Dennis A. Ross, R-Florida, is simply trying to find answers to the national debt, and the question of whether to raise the debt ceiling. He and other tea party Republicans are leery of Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner’s changing forecasts of when the U.S. will max out its credit line and are offering alternatives.


I'm not an economist, but I have maintained a household. The federal government owns 70 percent of Utah ... If you need cash, let's start liquidating." -Rep. Dennis A. Ross, R-Florida
“I’m not an economist, but I have maintained a household,” Ross told Reuters. “The federal government owns 70 percent of Utah, for example. There are federal buildings. If you need cash, let’s start liquidating.”


That was translated on some blogs to mean House members were suggesting “selling most of Utah.” In a statement issued Wednesday, though, Ross said he was mischaracterized by “left wing bloggers.”


“Selling excess federal lands, as Rep. Chaffetz has proposed, is something I fully support, as well as excess federal buildings,” Ross wrote in the statement.


Indeed, Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, has sponsored the Federal Building and Property Disposal Act. The legislation requires the federal government to sell roughly $19 billion in excess buildings and structures.


Chaffetz says he sees value in selling excess federal land, pointing to numbers from the Clinton Administration, that show 1 percent of the land served no public use.


“We need to, $1 billion at a time, start figuring out how we’re going to put a dent in that debt,” Chaffetz said.


Utah Gov. Gary Herbert also expressed interest in the idea in his monthly news conference Wednesday.


“There’s a lot of land that could in fact be privatized and help reduce the deficit, so I think it’s got some merit to it,” Herbert said.


Herbert said only 21 percent of the land in Utah is private, after subtracting federal, state and other ownership. He was skeptical Utah’s national parks and pristine areas would be sold, or that the federal government would act in this fashion altogether.


"To sell off your assets is something you want to think long and hard about. Interest is one thing. To sell off your principal is another." -Tim Chambless, political science professor
“It’s an idea that’s not new — that’s been talked about for the last generation,” Herbert said. “If we want to reduce the deficit and balance the budget on the federal level, why don’t we reduce some of the federal assets.”


Ross also suggested in his statement that states like Utah could benefit by developing “their energy resources, particularly shale oil, for the betterment of their citizens, much like Alaska does.”


The concept of selling federal lands to reduce the national debt is being met with a healthy dose of skepticism in other corners.


At the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, grass-roots outreach director Deeda Seed raised several questions.


“Essentially it’s a preposterous idea because the resources to be gained from the sale of public lands would barely make a dent in the federal debt,” Seed said. “At the same time, we would be losing a national treasure — one that belongs to all of us.”


Seed asked if the land is really of no public use, why sell it. She acknowledged some lands may have no use, but said she was concerned about setting a “bad precedent.”


At the University of Utah, political science professor Tim Chambless raised concerns about precedent.


“To sell off your assets is something you want to think long and hard about,” Chambless said. “Interest is one thing. To sell off your principal is another.”


Chambless said changing the tax code would be another alternative.


“We have individuals who are simply not paying their fair share of taxes,” Chambless said. “We could be looking at a savings of many billions of dollars if we reform the tax code and make people pay what they honestly owe in a system that is fair.”

Ya know, normally I'm a hardcore capitalist kind of guy, but public land is quite frankly something I tend to be a commie about.

This is the -last- thing they need to do as this almost totally ensures that this land will wind up in the hands of the political donors with the biggest pockets, and will totally and forever screw the public out of even more access to public land. Won't matter if its enviro-fascist groups buying it up (which is why I was awfully surprised to see SUWA's opposition to this) or oil companies or whoever, the public won't get anything but screwed here.

I would rather fight it out with the enviro-fascists in court than have the federal government sell OUR land out from underneath us to cover their own asses for pork barrel spending.
 
A
Apr 8, 2008
594
257
63
38
Bountiful, UT
I can think of alot of programs to cut and things to to privatize to save the government money.

This has never occured to me, I am not particularly for this and not completely against it either. I can see how it can turn out though either way.

For instance, if the federal forests goes away, there goes the USFS which is a huge burden and spends millions of dollars putting fires out because people think the forest doesn't burn. Now it is all private so who is going to put it out? hopefully private industry. I don't want to see the federal land go and lose all of our recreation areas either.

This country has gone to hell in a handbasket...
 

Dogmeat

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Premium Member
Feb 1, 2006
5,344
1,487
113
Castle Rock, CO
The motorized recreation crowd is already the "environmental scapegoat" for politicians, enviro-fascists, and industry. This will only expedite the process of getting us shut out of virtually every last facet of land that we're still legally and rightfully allowed to access and enjoy.
 

Dogmeat

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Premium Member
Feb 1, 2006
5,344
1,487
113
Castle Rock, CO
As long as WE could buy large tracts of mountain land I would have not problem with it.

Where are "we" going to get the money to do that? We owe like $700 trillion dollars or whatever, selling this land isn't going to even phase that without going for millions upon billions of dollars.
 
Premium Features