# Bush Proposes Funding Schools By Selling National Forests **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 17, 2006, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-proposes-funding-schools-by-selling-national-forests/348750 "2006-03-17T15:18:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2006, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-proposes-funding-schools-by-selling-national-forests/348750/1 "2006-03-17T15:18:26Z")
[Bush plan to sell off U.S. national forests under attack by former officials](http://news.yahoo.com/s/cpress/bush_land_sale) > [@](#): > > The U.S. administration formalized its plan to sell more than 120,000 hectares of national forest to help pay for rural schools in 41 states, submitting legislation to Congress on Thursday to funnel $800 million to the schools over the next five years. The debate is two-fold: Is selling off the national forests showing good stewardship of our national resources? And more importantly: Should education be funded through the sale of resources rather than taxes? At some point, the resources available for sale will run out, and taxes will have to be raised anyway. Why sell off our national treasures for a short term postponement of inevitable tax increases? In the context of the national budget which spends an equivalent amount in Iraq in less than a week, is $800 million really worth losing these lands forever? Is this the first move in a trend to plug the fiscal shortfall caused by Bush’s tax cuts by selling off the assets held in trust for the American people? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2006, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-proposes-funding-schools-by-selling-national-forests/348750/2 "2006-03-17T15:25:24Z")
This whole OP is a whoosh, right? Not even Bush would do something that stupid. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2006, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-proposes-funding-schools-by-selling-national-forests/348750/3 "2006-03-17T15:29:18Z")
Did you read the article? I assure you, he is serious. ---
**Author:** ![Renob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8c91f0/32.png) [@Renob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Renob)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2006, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-proposes-funding-schools-by-selling-national-forests/348750/4 "2006-03-17T15:40:01Z")
One of the better ideas of the Bush Administration. Most people don’t realize how extensive the federal land holdings are in the Western States. Idaho, for instance, is over 60% federally-owned. Besides a raft of other problems this creates for these states, it also hurts their schools since the land cannot be taxed by shool districts. In some counties, upwards of 90% of the land is removed from tax rolls. Since in many instances these counties are relatively poor (they usually rely on logging for their jobs, and logging is a declining industry), they are unable to receive much tax money from landowners. The feds do a pretty poor job managing their acreage. Stewardship decisions are most often based on political calculations instead of sound science, and this leads to poor lands policy (fire suppression, over-harvesting in the 80’s, underharvesting in the 90’s, no salvage logging, limiting access to the land, etc.). Private ownership would lead to better land management and would, at the same time, help local schools. I hope Bush can pull it off, but it’s unlikely. Most Western politicians are wary because their constituents fear that this type of land sale means they will no longer be able to access public lands. What they fail to realize is that this would only affect a small percentage of that land and that, when a different political party occuppies the White House, their access is likely to be restricted, too (see what the Clinton Administration did in terms of access). ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2006, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-proposes-funding-schools-by-selling-national-forests/348750/5 "2006-03-17T15:43:48Z")
> [@Renob](#): > > One of the better ideas of the Bush Administration. Do you agree that public education should be funded by the sale of assets rather than taxes? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2006, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-proposes-funding-schools-by-selling-national-forests/348750/6 "2006-03-17T15:46:42Z")
> [@Renob](#): > > Most Western politicians are wary because their constituents fear that this type of land sale means they will no longer be able to access public lands. What they fail to realize is that this would only affect a small percentage of that land and that, when a different political party occuppies the White House, their access is likely to be restricted, too (see what the Clinton Administration did in terms of access). What exactly does “access” mean in this context? “Logging”? ---
**Author:** ![EEMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a6a055/32.png) [@EEMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EEMan)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2006, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-proposes-funding-schools-by-selling-national-forests/348750/7 "2006-03-17T15:46:51Z")
> [@Fear Itself](#): > > Do you agree that public education should be funded by the sale of assets rather than taxes? I believe the arguement is; the one time sale of these assets (whose proceeds would go directly to the schools) would increase the tax base of the areas around the sales (schools get most of their funding from local taxes, not federal). ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2006, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-proposes-funding-schools-by-selling-national-forests/348750/8 "2006-03-17T15:48:01Z")
> [@Fear Itself](#): > > Do you agree that public education should be funded by the sale of assets rather than taxes? I don’t agree with that statement as a general proposition. But I agree with the common-sense concept that if selling the land makes sense – and it does – then using that income to fund schools is perfectly reasonable. ---
**Author:** ![Renob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8c91f0/32.png) [@Renob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Renob)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2006, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-proposes-funding-schools-by-selling-national-forests/348750/9 "2006-03-17T15:48:43Z")
> [@Fear Itself](#): > > Do you agree that public education should be funded by the sale of assets rather than taxes? I’d rather the money goes to the Treasury. For me, it’s more important that the land gets sold. What they do with the money is secondary. If it won’t go to the Treasury, I don’t see the harm in supplying it to school districts. The real benefit for edcuation will be that if this land is sold to private individuals, that land will be added to local tax rolls. That means counties will be able to expand their tax base and increase the local funding for education. If the land is sold to states, many states use land they own to form an education endowment that helps fund the state’s share of education. So if the feds transfer it to states, that would also be a good thing. ---
**Author:** ![Least\_Original\_User\_Name\_Ever](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e480ec/32.png) [@Least\_Original\_User\_Name\_Ever](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Least_Original_User_Name_Ever)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2006, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-proposes-funding-schools-by-selling-national-forests/348750/10 "2006-03-17T15:48:54Z")
i agree. this sounds like a joke. taxes are one thing, but with all the money flowing in, it’s hard to believe that someone with unlimited control and power and a level head couldn’t go in for a couple years and fix the budget mess. of course, that’s not how we run. we don’t like giving our leaders unlimited control and power (a good thing) and we aren’t holding level-headed people up to any standards here. anywhoot, yeah, as the original poster stated, this may be rife wth problems. 'd like to hear more about it. if it’s recent and worming its way through the halls of bureaucracy, we’ll hear more about it, for sure. ---
**Author:** ![Renob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8c91f0/32.png) [@Renob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Renob)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2006, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-proposes-funding-schools-by-selling-national-forests/348750/11 "2006-03-17T15:50:05Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > What exactly does “access” mean in this context? “Logging”? No, that’s a different issue. Access means the public having access to the land. During the Clinton Administration much public land across the West was effectively put off-limits to the public by the shutting down of roads and recreation trails. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2006, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-proposes-funding-schools-by-selling-national-forests/348750/12 "2006-03-17T15:56:45Z")
> [@EEMan](#): > > I believe the arguement is; the one time sale of these assets (whose proceeds would go directly to the schools) would increase the tax base of the areas around the sales (schools get most of their funding from local taxes, not federal). Of course, the tax assessed on privately owned land is based on its market value. 1000 acres of forest used for logging would be worth much less, on the market, than the same 1000 acres developed into subdivisions. Therefore . . . ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2006, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-proposes-funding-schools-by-selling-national-forests/348750/13 "2006-03-17T15:58:00Z")
> [@Renob](#): > > If the land is sold to states, many states use land they own to form an education endowment that helps fund the state’s share of education. How does a state derive revenue from land it simply owns? Do they lease it out, or what? ---
**Author:** ![EEMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a6a055/32.png) [@EEMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EEMan)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2006, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-proposes-funding-schools-by-selling-national-forests/348750/14 "2006-03-17T16:01:09Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Of course, the tax assessed on privately owned land is based on its market value. 1000 acres of forest used for logging would be worth much less, on the market, than the same 1000 acres developed into subdivisions. Therefore . . . Only if you have the popluation density to absorb those acres as subdivisions. ---
**Author:** ![Renob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8c91f0/32.png) [@Renob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Renob)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2006, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-proposes-funding-schools-by-selling-national-forests/348750/15 "2006-03-17T16:01:13Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > How does a state derive revenue from land it simply owns? Do they lease it out, or what? Depending on the state, generally through logging, mining, or grazing. > [@](#): > > Of course, the tax assessed on privately owned land is based on its market value. 1000 acres of forest used for logging would be worth much less, on the market, than the same 1000 acres developed into subdivisions. Therefore . . . In most of these areas, dividing the land up for subdivisions is simply not realistic. This land is remote, has no roads going to it and no access to utilities, and the surrounding private land is sparsely populated. If you think the only thing preventing national forestland from being subdivided for housing developments is its designation as “national forestland,” then you need to get out West more often. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2006, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-proposes-funding-schools-by-selling-national-forests/348750/16 "2006-03-17T16:05:23Z")
> [@Renob](#): > > Most people don’t realize how extensive the federal land holdings are in the Western States. Idaho, for instance, is over 60% federally-owned. Besides a raft of other problems this creates for these states, it also hurts their schools since the land cannot be taxed by shool districts. Most of that land is BLM land, not national forests, which is what we are talking about here. If the feds were selling BLM lands, I wouldn’t object, but national forest lands demand a higher justification than filling the gaps left by tax cuts. > [@](#): > > During the Clinton Administration much public land across the West was effectively put off-limits to the public by the shutting down of roads and recreation trails. I would like to see a cite for this. As far as I know, no recreational trails were closed for the purpose of restricting acceess to public lands. > [@EEman](#): > > I believe the arguement is; the one time sale of these assets (whose proceeds would go directly to the schools) would increase the tax base of the areas around the sales (schools get most of their funding from local taxes, not federal). That is contrary to the description in the article of the lands being offered for sale: > [@](#): > > Parcels to be sold are isolated, expensive to manage or no longer meet forest system needs, he said. It is difficult to describe land as “isolated” if they are within areas served by existing school districts. ---
**Author:** ![Patty\_O\_Furniture](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/96bed5/32.png) [@Patty\_O\_Furniture](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Patty_O_Furniture)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2006, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-proposes-funding-schools-by-selling-national-forests/348750/17 "2006-03-17T16:07:05Z")
1. Are these new or existing schools? If existing, doesn’t this amount to “thowing money at the problem”? 2. Could foreign interests buy up our forrests? Foreign interests already hold two-thirds of our debt; I am more than a little weary of selling off our land to them as well. 3. The administration seems to prefer liquidating our assets instead of cutting down on spending. I think we need to do more of the latter and less or none of the former. Bush seems to see our debt problem as a hole he can dig himself out of. Perhaps more tax cuts are in order. ---
**Author:** ![Renob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8c91f0/32.png) [@Renob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Renob)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2006, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-proposes-funding-schools-by-selling-national-forests/348750/18 "2006-03-17T16:13:10Z")
> [@Fear Itself](#): > > Most of that land is BLM land, not national forests, which is what we are talking about here. If the feds were selling BLM lands, I wouldn’t object, but national forest lands demand a higher justification than filling the gaps left by tax cuts. Actually, a huge amount of the land in the West is owned by the Forest Service. And why does national forestland need a higher justification for sale? There is little difference between BLM land and national forestland, except the latter has trees on it. > [@](#): > > I would like to see a cite for this. As far as I know, no recreational trails were closed for the purpose of restricting acceess to public lands. Let me see what I can find. > [@](#): > > That is contrary to the description in the article of the lands being offered for sale:It is difficult to describe land as “isolated” if they are within areas served by existing school districts. All land in the U.S. is within one school district or another. In a state like Idaho, school districts are either counties or portions of counties. In those counties there was quite a lot of isolated national forestland. I’m pretty sure other Western states are the same. Due to the way the feds sold the land in the late 1800’s, there is often a lot of private land among the federal land (it forms a nice little checkerboard pattern). This isolated private land is taxed, the federal land is not. Just because land is isolated does not mean it isn’t in a school district. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2006, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-proposes-funding-schools-by-selling-national-forests/348750/19 "2006-03-17T16:15:17Z")
> [@Renob](#): > > One of the better ideas of the Bush Administration. Most people don’t realize how extensive the federal land holdings are in the Western States. Idaho, for instance, is over 60% federally-owned. Besides a raft of other problems this creates for these states, it also hurts their schools since the land cannot be taxed by shool districts. In some counties, upwards of 90% of the land is removed from tax rolls. Since in many instances these counties are relatively poor (they usually rely on logging for their jobs, and logging is a declining industry), they are unable to receive much tax money from landowners. If Idaho is 60% federally owned, doesn’t Idaho just have to manage 40% of a state? I’m trying to grasp why Idaho cares if it’s 60% federally owned- since the burdens and revenues are generated by the other 40%. And in counties where 90% is federally owned, that just means that the county has burdens and revenues as if it was 10% of its actual size. Or am I missing something? ---
**Author:** ![HPL](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3da27b/32.png) [@HPL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HPL)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2006, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-proposes-funding-schools-by-selling-national-forests/348750/20 "2006-03-17T16:15:54Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > This whole OP is a whoosh, right? Not even Bush would do something that stupid. Do you really have to ask that? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-proposes-funding-schools-by-selling-national-forests/348750.md?page=2)