# 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:** 11\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2006, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-proposes-funding-schools-by-selling-national-forests/348750/61 "2006-03-19T22:12:23Z")
Some info from the [Gainesville (Georgia) Times](http://www.gainesvilletimes.com/news/stories/20060228/localnews/71471.shtml): > [@](#): > > “The forest service maintains a ‘swap file’ of lands that don’t really fit their management prescriptions and they can exchange for more desirable tracts,” said Denny Rhodes, conservation director for the Georgia Appalachian Trail Club. > > “Under that policy, the quality of forest goes up and the acreage remains roughly the same. But under the new policy, there would be a net loss of land.” > > Wayne Jenkins, director of Georgia ForestWatch, an environmental group based in Ellijay, thinks the forest service is wrong to dismiss the targeted tracts as inconsequential. > > “These properties, even if they are isolated, serve as de facto greenspace in areas of Georgia that are being rapidly developed,” he said. “The forest service is calling them ‘small’ tracts, but some are several hundred acres and provide substantial ecological benefits.” ---
**Author:** ![Renob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8c91f0/32.png) [@Renob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Renob)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2006, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-proposes-funding-schools-by-selling-national-forests/348750/62 "2006-03-20T00:20:42Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Thus, it might as well be “Bush proposes funding War in Iraq by sellings federal land” or “Bush proposes funding his tax cuts for the rich by selling fedral land” or “funding just about any federal spending program…” > > So, the whole thing of “schools” is bullshit. The money will not go to schools, it will go into the General Fund, to be spent on whatever. Now, if you truely think that the Federal government needs to increase spending- this a great idea. :rolleyes: Wrong. The money would be tied to a funding stream that is used to provide federal money to school districts hurt by large amounts of federal forest land within them. The money raised would be obligated to go to those schools. It would not go into the general treasury. And, **spoke-** , I said that a lot of national forestland is isolated and distant from population centers, not _all_. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2006, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-proposes-funding-schools-by-selling-national-forests/348750/63 "2006-03-20T04:31:28Z")
> [@Renob](#): > > Wrong. The money would be tied to a funding stream that is used to provide federal money to school districts hurt by large amounts of federal forest land within them. The money raised would be obligated to go to those schools. It would not go into the general treasury. Sigh. It doesn’t have to go into the General Treasury. Cash is a fungible commodity. Read my example I already posted: "\*Next, this is the classic “bait and switch” of Government, which happens all the time. It goes like this- a Government enity has a General budget of 100 “U” (short for “Units”, this could be thousands of $$, or Billions of $$- makes no difference). The Enity wants to raise taxes. The People don’t want higher taxes. Enity finds a line item in the budget that is very popular- Libraries, Education, Public safety- whatever. It doesn’t matter. It’s never something like Pork, or higher salaries for the lawmakers, or Aid. The Budget is 100 U, remember? Now, 5 U goes to Libraries, and 10 U goes to Pork in the current budget. But the Enity really wants to spend more on Pork, however- Libraries are very popular. So, they push a tax increase of 5U for Libraries. The new budget is now 105U. But they wanted Pork, not books! So, now the budget is 5U Libraries- and 15U Pork. Viola! An extra 5U to spend on Pork, funded through a tax for libraries. (One small consolation for the Bookworms- usually this does mean that Libraries now have a safe budget of at least 5U). **TAX FUNDS ARE A FUNGIBLE COMMODITY.** When a dollar comes in, even though it was promised for Libraries, it can be spent anywhere. A dollar is a dollar is a dollar. (or a U ). And, it’s never as clear and easy as the above example. So- whever “they” want for funds for “\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_”; that “\_\_\_\_\_\_\_” can be pretty well anything they want it to be, after “they” get the $$.\* So, you have to understand it all _really_ goes into the “general treasury”, no matter what they say. The “Social Security Trust Fund” is all “obligated” to go to Social Security, but just gets tossed into the General fund, and a pile of IOU’s get put into the “trust fund”. Here’s what Cecil sez on that, and that’s Social Security, dude! The most Sacred of sacred cows in American politics. [http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5\_027.html](http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_027.html) ---
**Author:** ![Renob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8c91f0/32.png) [@Renob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Renob)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2006, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-proposes-funding-schools-by-selling-national-forests/348750/64 "2006-03-20T04:50:55Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > **TAX FUNDS ARE A FUNGIBLE COMMODITY.** When a dollar comes in, even though it was promised for Libraries, it can be spent anywhere. Not in this case. There are many obligated funds in the federal government that say when money is raised from a certain source it gets spent in a certain way. Gasoline taxes are one. When the money pours into the feds from the 18 or so cents from each gallon of gas, it goes into a fund that only pays for transportation. When federal timber receipts come in, a certain portion of that money goes to pay certain counties. The money for these funds rises and falls depending on the source of income. The Bush proposal would be the same. The money for the federal program is based on a formula, and when money comes in from a designated source, it goes out to a designated program. ---
**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 20, 2006, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-proposes-funding-schools-by-selling-national-forests/348750/65 "2006-03-20T15:06:13Z")
> [@Renob](#): > > The money for the federal program is based on a formula, and when money comes in from a designated source, it goes out to a designated program. But it displaces funds appropriated (or which should be appropriated) from our taxes, which are now free to be used to occupy foreign countries, prop up dictators, or award subsidies to oil companies. All federal income is fungible. Education funding should not be sold to the taxpayer as a painless sell-off of our national assets. It is an investment in our future, and as such, it should be a budget item that is not dependent on finite, non-renewable resources like real estate. How are you going to fund rural schools when all the land that is “isolated, expensive to manage or no longer meet forest system needs” has been sold?" ---
**Author:** ![Renob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8c91f0/32.png) [@Renob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Renob)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2006, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-proposes-funding-schools-by-selling-national-forests/348750/66 "2006-03-20T15:27:49Z")
> [@Fear Itself](#): > > But it displaces funds appropriated (or which should be appropriated) from our taxes, which are now free to be used to occupy foreign countries, prop up dictators, or award subsidies to oil companies. Not really. Right now, the program is being funded by revenue obtained by activities on Forest Service land. This program was only set up to last for five years. The Bush proposal is that it continues another five years and now the revenue comes from the sale of federal land. > [@](#): > > All federal income is fungible. No, it is not. To repeat – certain revenue coming into the federal government is obligated to be spent in a certain way. Gasoline taxes are one example. > [@](#): > > Education funding should not be sold to the taxpayer as a painless sell-off of our national assets. It’s not. Education funding, on the whole, comes from the general treasury. This program is a little extra money for school districts that contain a lot of federal forestland. This proposal is not funding IDEA, the No Child Left Behind Act, or any other federal education program. > [@](#): > > It is an investment in our future, and as such, it should be a budget item that is not dependent on finite, non-renewable resources like real estate. How are you going to fund rural schools when all the land that is “isolated, expensive to manage or no longer meet forest system needs” has been sold?" It’s not as if funding for these schools will dry up once this program goes away. This program provides these districts with extra money. These funds are in addition to all the other federal money they get. ---
**Author:** ![NurseCarmen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/5daacb/32.png) [@NurseCarmen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NurseCarmen)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2006, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-proposes-funding-schools-by-selling-national-forests/348750/67 "2006-03-20T18:54:51Z")
> [@Renob](#): > > The land would like essentially the same as it does now, except it would likely be better cared for – more selective thinning of trees which would lead to fewer forest fires. **Renob** , it is quite apparent that you have no idea of the realities of forest management. Do you ever get out of DC? By “selective thinning of trees” you mean ‘old growth’? Because the timber industry really has little or no use for the type of forest that is most at risk for fire. Old growth forests handle fire very well. Large old trees can easily handle fire. It’s younger forests that have a harder time with fire. Undergrowth and suseptability to disease make the younger forest a prime target for fires. But lack of pristine board feet keep the lumber companies out. > [@](#): > > Timber companies log and re-log the land they own. Where most of these companies have land it is much more valuable to keep it as timber land than selling it for homes. False. They have become tax averse, and are selling timber [land](http://www.pchlandsales.com/) faster than they ever have before. You seem to have this vision of responsible corporations working hand in hand with the government to make a prettier forest. Get out more man. Go see some of the abandoned and broken equipment left behind in the clear cuts. Go see the non existant replanting of the forests that you are so sure they are interested in regrowing. Go see how logical fire breaks for forest management and stands the timber industry are actually interested in rarely overlap. If you believe this is anything other that a nod to the timber industry, I have [del]some swampland in Florida to sell you[/del] a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. ---
**Author:** ![Renob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8c91f0/32.png) [@Renob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Renob)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2006, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-proposes-funding-schools-by-selling-national-forests/348750/68 "2006-03-20T19:54:43Z")
> [@NurseCarmen](#): > > **Renob** , it is quite apparent that you have no idea of the realities of forest management. Do you ever get out of DC? Actually, I grew up in a timber family, lived in a rural county that was heavily dependent on logging income, and worked doing pre-commercial thinning. I also worked on forestry policy in Washington, D.C. If you want to compare credentials, I’ll be happy to play that game. > [@](#): > > By “selective thinning of trees” you mean ‘old growth’? No, I don’t. By selective thinning of trees I mean just that – loggers go in and selectively thin a stand of timber. > [@](#): > > Because the timber industry really has little or no use for the type of forest that is most at risk for fire. Old growth forests handle fire very well. Large old trees can easily handle fire. It’s younger forests that have a harder time with fire. Undergrowth and suseptability to disease make the younger forest a prime target for fires. But lack of pristine board feet keep the lumber companies out. Not quite. If a younger forest is managed well (that is, if it is logged in regular intervals) it is quite healthy and valuable to timber companies. That is why timber companies have intensive management strategies for their land. The Forest Service, on the other hand, has its hands tied and supresses fire on the one hand, and on the other doesn’t log often enough. Therefore their stands of trees become as you describe above – overgrown and susceptible to fire and disease. Private companies take better care of their land than the government (generally). > [@](#): > > False. They have become tax averse, and are selling timber [land](http://www.pchlandsales.com/) faster than they ever have before. Let’s see some actual documentation of that, rather than just a site that is one timber company selling some of its land. > [@](#): > > You seem to have this vision of responsible corporations working hand in hand with the government to make a prettier forest. I know this doesn’t happen. The government is too hamstrung to effectively manage their forests by environmentalists that don’t want to see any tree cut. If it were in private hands the forestland would be much better off. > [@](#): > > Go see the non existant replanting of the forests that you are so sure they are interested in regrowing. I’ve seen plenty of replanting on private land where it is in the interests of timber companies to do so. On public land, it’s a different story. ---
**Author:** ![Sal\_Ammoniac](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8dc957/32.png) [@Sal\_Ammoniac](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sal_Ammoniac)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2006, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-proposes-funding-schools-by-selling-national-forests/348750/69 "2006-03-20T20:59:39Z")
> [@Renob](#): > > If a younger forest is managed well (that is, if it is logged in regular intervals) it is quite healthy and valuable to timber companies. That is why timber companies have intensive management strategies for their land. But let’s just remember that healthy for timber companies doesn’t necessarily mean healthy in terms of ecosystem. Intensive management strategies usually mean monocropping. That’s why I continue to say that there’s an angle around habitat loss that shouldn’t be ignored here. ---
**Author:** ![NurseCarmen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/5daacb/32.png) [@NurseCarmen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NurseCarmen)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2006, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-proposes-funding-schools-by-selling-national-forests/348750/70 "2006-03-20T21:23:11Z")
> [@Renob](#): > > Let’s see some actual documentation of that, rather than just a site that is one timber company selling some of its land. [Cite](http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-12-22-forest-development_x.htm). > [@](#): > > International Paper, one of the nation’s largest forest owners, put all its land — 6.4 million acres — up for sale in July to refocus its business on paper and packaging manufacturing. > \ > Seattle-based Plum Creek Timber, the nation’s largest private timber owner with 8.2 million acres, became a real estate investment trust in 1999. In 2004, Boise Cascade sold its 2.3 million forest acres and assumed the name of its OfficeMax subsidiary. That’s just a quick Google search, I assure you there is more, and when I get a moment I’ll try to dig more up. ---
**Author:** ![NurseCarmen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/5daacb/32.png) [@NurseCarmen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NurseCarmen)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2006, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-proposes-funding-schools-by-selling-national-forests/348750/71 "2006-03-21T21:40:18Z")
In a case of serindipity, the Washington Post provides more [cites](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/20/AR2006032001595.html?nav=rss_email/components) in today’s issue. (Registration required after today) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-proposes-funding-schools-by-selling-national-forests/348750.md?page=3)