It certainly is not. Working class people living in these rural areas would be the biggest beneficiaries – more jobs and more tax revenue for local schools.
This statement shows me you don’t really realize the type of land that is being talked about here. It’s not like the city of Portland or Seattle is surrounded by national forestland that would be developed if it didn’t belong to the government. A lot of national forestland is far from populations centers and there is no demand in these areas for subdivisions or strip malls. The land, if sold, would likely be sold to timber companies. 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.
It’s absolutely the case that some federal land, if sold, will be chopped up into subdivisions and strip malls. I don’t say all, or even most, but some will. Hell, timber companies, often after they’ve logged the land, sell to developers. That’s a one-way street right there, in that that land, once covered with houses, is permanently degraded as wildlife habitat. If it’s happening in Montana, it is most definitely happening in the West. Look at the fastest-growing states in the union, and you’ll see Nevada atop the list. That’s the West. That’s the state that’s been cited in this thread as being 87% owned by the feds.
As to who benefits, you say yourself, “The land, if sold, would likely be sold to timber companies.” Thats’s my point – big business interests are the ones who benefit mostly directly, which is not to deny that there are incidental benefits in terms of jobs.
Really? If so, it’s not very often. Trees are a crop like any other crop. 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.
Furthermore, what type of logging are you talking about? There are a variety of different logging methods, and a stand of trees can be logged a few different times during its life. Unless the land is highly valuable as a development (again, it isn’t in the areas where most national forests exist), it makes no sense for timber companies to sell it after they log it, because they can log it again within ten to twenty years.
Do you know how big Montana is? Even though it’s growing greatly, it still only about as populated as Delaware. There is plenty of forestland in Montana.
Again, do you know how big Nevada is? Most of its growth is in Las Vegas. The north of the state is not the population center.
Big Business employs people. Without big business, people lose jobs. Ask all the people who lost jobs in lumber mills in the 1990’s who hurts most when these jobs go. The owners of timber companies will be fine with or without more logging. They are diversified. The people who benefit are the blue collar workers who have few other job options in those areas.
My guess is that any federal land sold will be sold at far below its market value. This has been a common occurrence in the past and I certainly doubt the Bush administration is going to be the exception. So I imagine the real point of this proposal is to hook up a few influential businessmen who have friends in the administration with a financial windfall.
Education is an ongoing program. So its costs should be paid for by an ongoing source of income. It makes no sense to finance it through sale of a finite asset. The current administration gets a short term benefit and future administrations have to figure out a way to make those same payments except with fewer assets on hand.
So here’s what I think will happen. The Bush administration will sell off eight billion dollars’ worth of land for eight hundred million dollars. Some Bush supporters will make a $7,200,000,000 profit from the transaction and the United States will lose that amount of assets. The Bush will make a speech about how education’s getting an additional $800,000,000 because of this plan and people will applaud. The next week, he’ll cut $800,000,000 from the education budget because it’s being replaced by the forest money. Then he’ll enact a tax cut for millionaires because the budget was lowered. Then he’ll spend most of the $800,000,000 that was supposed to be spent on education on something else.
So the final results will be a bunch of businesses will make a huge fortune for doing nothing. The United States will be poorer. Millionaires will pay less taxes. Schools will have their funding cut. Most of us will have to pay more taxes to make up the missing funding. Bush will get applause for things he said but didn’t do. And the democrats will be blamed for all the problems that arise.
Clear cutting isn’t used that much as a logging practice. At times, however, clear cutting is the best way to manage forest land. Even if land is clear cut, that is no big deal. In a few years, trees are growing again. Clear cuts may not look nice in the short-term, but it’s poor forest management to base your decisions on aesthetics.
Nemo, your post has little connection to how the government works. A few examples:
Even if this happens, which is doubtful, so what? That’s $800 million more than the government had before. Your assets are only worth what you sell them for. If the government holds onto them forever, then they are worth nothing.
Bush can cut no money from the budget. Congress controls the purse strings, and it has been quite generous with education since 1995.
Tax cuts have little relation to whether we have a surplus or a deficit.
Actually, under his proposal it’s explicitly tied to a current funding stream, so this can’t happen.
I know you were trying to be humorous, Nemo, but your scenario should at least have a passing resemblance to reality.
Renob, it doesn’t matter how big Nevada and Montana are. Explosive growth, of the sprawling kind typical of the West, sometimes has an outsize impact – on water resources, for example. Again, it seems to me that if the feds are selling land, they’ll be tempted to do it where it can get the best price – near major connurbations such as Las Vegas or Phoenix. Greater Phoenix is actually a good example. It has grown explosively, but it’s hemmed in on the south by an Indian reservation, and on the east by the Tonto National Forest. If land were sold off from the national forest, it would undoubtedly be logged, and then sold. No timber company would wait decades for the trees to grow back if they could sell off the land piecemeal and make windfall profits.
This is all a bit hypothetical at this point, but that’s why I’m worrying more about precedent than about current practice. I would hate to see us fall back on the notion that “Well, the West is a big place and can spare a couple of trees.” I mean, the Amazon forest is a big place too, but look how much of that has been lost.
Indeed, not only a “passing resemblence” but almost a sure thing. Sure Congress does control the budget, but it’s a Republican Congress, and the Bush Admin more or less gets it’s way.
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. :mad: 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 $$.
Welcome to the peoples republic of china Mt. Rushmore “Gang of Four” theme park. Through skillful digital projections, Teddy Roosevelt has been transformed into a crediable Mao, George Washington to Hu jin Tao, …you get the idea.
And I know you’re trying to be serious, Renob, and that’s what makes your posts so funny.
Assets are assets. If you sell them for less than they’re worth and less than you could have received, you lose part of their value. Historically, the government has sold federal land for far less money than an equivalent amount of private land would have sold for.
Not directly, obviously, but that’s like saying that Lyndon Johnson didn’t send any troops to Vietnam because it was Congress that signed the Tonkin Gulf Resolution. The reality is that the President can influence the actions of the government and that’s what Bush is trying to do here.
I’m glad to see you don’t deny the idea that Bush will seek a tax cut. But you appear to be denying reality by saying tax policy has no relation to the amount of money the government collects.
Federal land cost money to maintain and it hurts the counties and states where they are located. If the feds sold the land, even below market value, so what? It would raise revenue for the feds, it would help the counties and states the land is located in, and it would put the land to productive use.
If you are so hung up on this, then simply put the land up for sale at an auction. That right there would produce market value revenue.
Budgetary politics don’t work like this. The President has little influence on how much a certain agency or program receives. He can give his suggestion, but in the end all he can do is sign or veto an appropriations bill. Congress is the one that writes all the details.
I only wish Bush would push for more tax cuts.
You misunderstand. I was trying to say that whether or not Congress enacts a tax cut (or increases spending) has little or nothing to do with the size of the deficit.
How exactly does a forest require upkeep? Are we talking sweeping up pine needles, dusting the chipmunks, that kind of thing? And how does a federal land hurt the county or state it’s located in? Other than the above mentioned chipmunk dust? Wilderness is actually popular with many people and enhances nearby property values.
On a serious note, I agree that if federal land is going to be sold (not that I agree that’s a good idea) the way to go about it would be a public auction. But the Bush administration doesn’t have a record for that kind of transparency.
If government spending increases and government income decreases, how does this not effect the size of the deficit?
Fire supression is the major one. There is also upkeep on roads, search and rescue for lost people, law enforcement patrols, paying for Ranger Rick to look over the land, etc.
See the above discussions about how the federal land reduces the amount of property tax available to counties and how the federal land decisions can decimate local economies.
I’m not being clear. What I’m saying is that the size of the deficit does not affect the behavior of Congress and the President regarding tax increases or spending. It’s not as if when there is a surplus Congress reduces taxes or when there is a surplus Congress stops spending more. Congress spends and taxes with little relationship to the size of the deficit.
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:
This shows me you don’t really realize the type of land being talked about here. Thousands of acres are to be sold from the Chattahoochee National Forest in north Georgia, which is feeling the pressure of Atlanta’s growth.
The People don’t want higher taxes. :mad: 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).
). 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 $$.