Give away public lands? What?

[_Jersey Girl]

Could someone with a better head than me please tell me what you think this means?

Article dated Jan 5, 2017

The U.S. House of Representatives just made it easier for the government to sell or give away national parks, national forests, and other public lands.

A new rule, written by House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Rob Bishop (R-UT), establishes as fact that any legislation to dispose of public lands and natural resources would cost taxpayers exactly $0. This paves the way for the new Congress to get rid of vast swaths of public lands — all at the expense of the American taxpayer.

Under Congressional Budget Office accounting rules, the House is required to account for the cost of any legislation it considers. Now, the House does not need to even estimate any financial losses from giving away public land. Bills to dispose of public land will skip several steps in the normal legislative process, coming up for a vote without any discussion of the costs and benefits. The House approved the rules change by a vote of 234 to 193 on Tuesday.

Since the move applies only to House rules, it is not subject to approval by the Senate or a presidential signature. It is effective immediately.

“The House Republican plan to give away America’s public lands for free is outrageous and absurd,” Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) said in a statement just prior to the vote. “This proposed rule change would make it easier to implement this plan by allowing the Congress to give away every single piece of property we own, for free, and pretend we have lost nothing of any value. Not only is this fiscally irresponsible, but it is also a flagrant attack on places and resources valued and beloved by the American people.”

The procedural shortcut appears to apply equally to all types of public land. For example, national parks from Yellowstone to the Grand Canyon, as well as federal buildings such as the Pentagon, could all be given away without consideration of the cost to American taxpayers.

The idea to dispose of public lands reflects the alliance between anti-government extremists, led by Cliven Bundy, and members of the anti-parks caucus, who don’t acknowledge the federal government’s authority over national public lands. Instead, these groups want to see public lands given to the states. In reality, states would likely be unable to shoulder the burden of managing these lands — from fighting wildfire to cleaning up abandoned mines — and would ultimately sell them to private interests.

The House rules change was met with sharp criticism from conservation and watchdog groups.

“Less than one day in and Congressional Republicans are already greasing the skids to give away or sell off America’s public lands, forests, and wildlife refuges,” Jen Rokala, executive director for the Center for Western Priorities, said in a statement. “What’s worse, politicians are using smoke and mirrors to hide the cost of stealing away our public lands, while ripping off American taxpayers in the process.”

More than 90 percent of voters in Nevada, Colorado, and Montana believe public lands are an essential part of their state’s economy, according to polling by Rokala’s group. In addition, the U.S. Government Accountability Office has found that oil and gas drilling on public lands is one of the federal government’s largest sources of non-tax revenue.

Moreover, the Outdoor Industry Association estimates that outdoor recreation, which largely takes place on public lands, is responsible for a $646-billion industry that supports 6.1 million direct jobs.

As recently as four weeks ago, Congress acknowledged the importance of the outdoor recreation economy. Both the House and Senate unanimously passed the Outdoor Recreation Jobs and Economic Impact Act (the Outdoor REC Act), which directs the Department of Commerce to measure the value of outdoor recreation economy.

But Tuesday’s vote asserts that public lands have absolutely no value to the American public — discounting the very economic driver the Outdoor REC Act aims to measure.

Both President-elect Trump and his Interior Secretary nominee, Rep. Ryan Zinke (R-MT) have been vocal opponents of selling off America’s public lands. Zinke resigned from the GOP platform-writing committee last summer after it included language supporting the disposal of public lands. However, Zinke voted in favor of the rules change that would streamline public land disposal.

It remains unclear where he will stand on this issue if confirmed as Interior Secretary. A date for Zinke’s confirmation hearing has not been set.

https://thinkprogress.org/house-officia ... .w1gxz4n2x

[_Some Schmo]

If you put a bunch of coke heads in charge of the country's supply of cocaine, what do you suppose will happen?

The GOP will not be happy until this country is fully destroyed for their own economic benefit. damned assholes.

[_Res Ipsa]

The GOP wants to carry out its agenda without looking like it is increasing the deficit. It doesn't really care if it actually increases the deficit as long as it can create the appearance of not doing so. For example, repealing the ACA would significantly add to the deficit. Rather than address that fact head on, the GOP introduced a rule change that simply prevented the Congressional Budget Office from estimating the fiscal impact of repealing the ACA.

This rule change is similar. The federal government gets revenue from ownership of public lands, such as timber sales, mining leases, etc. The GOP wants to transfer federally owned lands to the states or private ownership. Rather than accounting for the loss of revenue, they passed a rule that simply declares it to be zero.

This is the same kind of gimmick that was employed during the second Gulf War. To avoid the appearance of blowing up the deficit, the cost of the war was declared to be "off budget."

In a political landscape where flat out lies are defended as alternative truth, prepare to see much more of this.

[_Jersey Girl]

The GOP wants to carry out its agenda without looking like it is increasing the deficit. It doesn't really care if it actually increases the deficit as long as it can create the appearance of not doing so. For example, repealing the ACA would significantly add to the deficit. Rather than address that fact head on, the GOP introduced a rule change that simply prevented the Congressional Budget Office from estimating the fiscal impact of repealing the ACA.

crap.

This rule change is similar. The federal government gets revenue from ownership of public lands, such as timber sales, mining leases, etc. The GOP wants to transfer federally owned lands to the states or private ownership. Rather than accounting for the loss of revenue, they passed a rule that simply declares it to be zero.

I'm trying to see past this point to the end result. And when I say end result, I mean impact to the land and states. What you are telling me is that the House of Reps is manipulating the numbers to show that there is no loss, because you can't lose something that isn't worth anything on paper. Right?

So, ultimately, when public federally owned lands fall back to the states, the states can ultimately reap the benefits of the revenue? Hang on, because I'm going to ask another question at the end here.

This is the same kind of gimmick that was employed during the second Gulf War. To avoid the appearance of blowing up the deficit, the cost of the war was declared to be "off budget."

In a political landscape where flat out lies are defended as alternative truth, prepare to see much more of this.

Got it.

The reason I went searching around for additional articles on this, was because a Facebook friend put up an article that told a different story from a different angle with regard to outcome. In that particular article, the main focus was that the fed gov was lowering the value of the land to zero, so that big oil could come in and scarf it all up for a song, for the purpose of fracking, etc.

What do you think about that?

You are saying this is a case of fiscal smoke and mirrors. What about the above assertion? For example, Yellowstone is now worth zilch? What if big oil wants to come in and frack the hell out of it? Part of this doesn't make sense to me. I can't believe the states would sell off land for a song so big oil can make a buck off it, unless the states receive an ongoing cut of the income.

I have more questions, I'll leave it at this for now.

And what about this, RI?

Both President-elect Trump and his Interior Secretary nominee, Rep. Ryan Zinke (R-MT) have been vocal opponents of selling off America’s public lands. Zinke resigned from the GOP platform-writing committee last summer after it included language supporting the disposal of public lands. However, Zinke voted in favor of the rules change that would streamline public land disposal.

It remains unclear where he will stand on this issue if confirmed as Interior Secretary. A date for Zinke’s confirmation hearing has not been set.

From a political standpoint, what the hell does that mean or imply?

The reason I'm ultimately asking about all of this has to do with the possibility of protected open and wild spaces turning into oil fields. I don't understand all that much about political maneuvers, but I sure as hell know what environmental impact is about.

[_The CCC]

Republican's know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. How much did Yellowstone cost? Not much of anything really. How much is it worth? Priceless.

[_Jersey Girl]

Here's the article that started my search.

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.co ... rs_expense

by Brody Levesque
January 08, 2017 1:54 PM

Change Could Ultimately Benefit Energy Companies, Forever Destroying America's Vast Wilderness
The Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives passed a rules change this past week by a vote of 234 to 193, that would allow Congress the ability to essentially give away federal lands and buildings for free. The new rule, authored by GOP Rep. Robert Bishop of Utah, Chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, codifies that any legislation to dispose of federal land and natural resources would have a net sum zero cost to taxpayers. As the rule applies only to the House legislative rules, it is not subject to approval by the Senate or a presidential signature and is effective immediately.

All Democrats in the House voted against the measure, while only three Republicans joined them in opposing it, USA TODAY reports. The Wilderness Society said "this move paves the way for a wholesale giveaway of our American hunting, fishing and camping lands that belong to us all. Make no mistake, the giveaway is for the benefit of the drilling and mining interests that have a lock-grip on Congress and the rest of Washington."

Since the House is required to account for any cost associated with any legislation it considers under Congressional Budget Office accounting rules and guidelines, legislation put forward now shall skip several steps in the normal legislative process, coming up for a vote without any discussion of the costs and benefits. This means that the House does not need to render an assessment or cost analysis of estimated financial losses resulting in legislation giving away public lands or buildings.

A Democratic Congressional source on Capitol Hill told NCRM Friday that this procedural rules shortcut will apply equally to all types of public land. 

“For example, the national parks like Yosemite - even federal buildings and facilities in Washington like the FBI's J. Edgar Hoover headquarters building, could all be given away without consideration of the cost to American taxpayers.”  

'Plan to Give Away America’s Public Lands for Free Is Outrageous and Absurd' Says Democratic Congressman

In an statement to NCRM via email Arizona Democratic Congressman Raul Grijalva of Arizona castigated House GOP leadership over the rules change. 

“The House Republican plan to give away America’s public lands for free is outrageous and absurd. This proposed rule change would make it easier to implement this plan by allowing the Congress to give away every single piece of property we own, for free, and pretend we have lost of any value. Not only is this fiscally irresponsible, but it is also a flagrant attack on places and resources valued and beloved by the American people,” Grijalva said. 

Federal stewardship over public lands has long been a contentious issue with Congressional Republicans and particularly with Tea Party and House Freedom Caucus members from the Western states. But in the case of Rep. Bishop, he has waged an incessant campaign to divest federal ownership of Western lands, in particular urging President-elect Donald Trump to abolish national monuments designated by President Barack Obama and former President Bill Clinton. More than 270 million acres of American land and waters are potentially at risk—an area two and a half times the size of California.

This latest maneuver by Bishop with the House rules change was met with sharp criticism from conservation and watchdog groups. One group told NCRM that the impetus for Bishop's zeal to unload federal property could be traced to his contributors.

According to the advocacy and activist group Oil Change International which tracks campaign contribution monies from fossil fuel corporations and the coal industry via the group's Dirty Energy Money web project, since 1999 Congressman Bishop has accepted campaign funds and contributions of more than $452,610 dollars from oil, gas and coal interests. Figures collected by Oil Change International show that greater than ten percent of that figure has come from the coal-friendly National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, which has led the fight against the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan. Oil giants Exxon-Mobil, Chevron, and Tesoro are also listed among Bishop's top campaign contributors.


Recent polling by the Denver, Colorado, based Center for Western Priorities showed that over seventy-five percent of registered voters in the states of Nevada, Colorado, and Montana believe public lands are an essential part of their respective state’s economies. Additionally, the Congressional watchdog agency, the Government Accountability Office, which is responsible for monitoring of the federal budget, found that leases for oil and gas drilling on public lands are one of the U.S. government’s largest sources of non-tax based revenues.

Congressional Republicans Accused of 'Greasing the Skids' and 'Using Smoke and Mirrors to Hide the Cost of Stealing Away Our Public Lands'

In a statement released Tuesday after the House rules change vote by the Center for Western Priorities, which calls itself a "nonpartisan conservation and advocacy organization," the organisation's Executive Director Jennifer Rokala noted: 

“Less than one day in and Congressional Republicans are already greasing the skids to give away or sell off America’s public lands, forests, and wildlife refuges. What’s worse, politicians are using smoke and mirrors to hide the cost of stealing away our public lands, while ripping off American taxpayers in the process.”


Recent polling by the Denver, Colorado, based Center for Western Priorities showed that over seventy-five percent of registered voters in the states of Nevada, Colorado, and Montana believe public lands are an essential part of their respective state’s economies. Additionally, the Congressional watchdog agency, the Government Accountability Office, which is responsible for monitoring of the federal budget, found that leases for oil and gas drilling on public lands are one of the U.S. government’s largest sources of non-tax based revenues.

Congressional Republicans Accused of 'Greasing the Skids' and 'Using Smoke and Mirrors to Hide the Cost of Stealing Away Our Public Lands'

In a statement released Tuesday after the House rules change vote by the Center for Western Priorities, which calls itself a "nonpartisan conservation and advocacy organization," the organisation's Executive Director Jennifer Rokala noted: 

“Less than one day in and Congressional Republicans are already greasing the skids to give away or sell off America’s public lands, forests, and wildlife refuges. What’s worse, politicians are using smoke and mirrors to hide the cost of stealing away our public lands, while ripping off American taxpayers in the process.”

She added, “President-elect Donald Trump and his nominee to run the Interior Department, Montana Representative Ryan Zinke, have disavowed attempts to seize our public lands. This is their first chance to show how serious they are by standing up to attacks on our parks and public lands in the U.S. House of Representatives.” 

During his presidential campaign, Trump was a vocal opponent of selling off federal lands. His Interior Secretary nominee, GOP Congressman Ryan Zinke, who serves as U.S. Representative for Montana's at-large congressional district, has also publicly stated his opposition to efforts to dispose of public lands. During the GOP platform writing committee sessions last summer he resigned after the Republican Party platform included language that would support disposal of federal lands. He did however vote in favor of House Resolution 5 for the Rules Change on Tuesday. A spokesperson for Zinke told NCRM Friday that any statement regarding a change in his position regarding Bishop's rule would be premature until further review and after his confirmation process as Interior Secretary.

Randi Spivak, public lands director with the Center for Biological Diversity remarked, "In Rob Bishop's world, land owned by all Americans should be taken over by those who see them as nothing but a source of profit for drilling, mining and logging. Fortunately there are laws that protect places like national monuments—Rep. Bishop apparently doesn't understand them or doesn't think they should apply to his ideology."

"If Rob Bishop has his way, where would it stop? Taking Yellowstone and Yosemite off the list of national parks?," asked Spivak.

(Hopefully no errors in my copy/paste)

[_Maksutov]

Be aware, Jersey Girl, that you're quoting liberal/progressive publications. Not saying they're wrong, but you might want to get a reading from the Wall Street Journal as well.

[_Res Ipsa]

To answer your questions, if federally owned land is transferred to the states, then the states will get the revenue being earned from the land. I don't think your friend's assertion is correct. Selling mining leases in Yellowstone, for an extreme example, would increase revenues, so the rule doesn't really come directly into play.

I think the concern by those opposed to transferring federal lands to the states is the financial pressure on the states to raise money by either selling them off to private parties or to introduce mining or other private business. Unlike the Federal Government, the states cannot operate at a financial deficit. Most states are currently strapped financially for a number of reasons. Look at the financial disaster that is Kansas today. If federal lands were transferred to Kansas today, I'd expect the State government to try and wring every nickel out of them.

I think there is a discussion to be had about federal ownership of land. But the House rule we're talking about is just budgetary film flam that lets the GOP transfer that land without examining the impact on the federal budget. For a party that claims it is for reducing the budget deficit, it's pretty damn duplicitous.

The straightforward approach would be to let the CBO score any bill that transfers land and then, under the sequester rules, require that any sale that increases the deficit be offset by a combination of tax increases or spending cuts. That's what would be required of a bill that, say, increased funding to early childhood education. The new rule is like saying that any bill that increases early childhood education spending is actually free.

And what about this, RI?

Both President-elect Trump and his Interior Secretary nominee, Rep. Ryan Zinke (R-MT) have been vocal opponents of selling off America’s public lands. Zinke resigned from the GOP platform-writing committee last summer after it included language supporting the disposal of public lands. However, Zinke voted in favor of the rules change that would streamline public land disposal.

It remains unclear where he will stand on this issue if confirmed as Interior Secretary. A date for Zinke’s confirmation hearing has not been set.

From a political standpoint, what the hell does that mean or imply?

The reason I'm ultimately asking about all of this has to do with the possibility of protected open and wild spaces turning into oil fields. I don't understand all that much about political maneuvers, but I sure as hell know what environmental impact is about.

Jersey Girl, I don't know what it means. Trump disagrees with himself from week to week. Many of his cabinet nominees disagreed in their hearings with his stated positions on important issues. On this one, your guess is as good as mine.

Remember, GWB campaigned the first time around on fighting global warming. Cheney apparently turned him around on that after the election. Who, if anyone, Trump will listen to is a crap shoot.

[_Jersey Girl]

RI,

I haven't read your new replies yet, but let me try to frame this another way. And I will tell you right up front as I have stated on the board many times, I am a very slow yet methodical learner. It takes me a very long time before the lights actually come on.

What I am getting is crosstalk that doesn't make sense to me. I'll try to articulate it.

1. One line of thinking on this is that this new action that reduces the value (on paper) of public/protected lands, makes it easier for the Fed Gov to give it away to oil companies for a song to do what they will with it.

2. One line of thinking is that this is a move to ultimately give states control over public/protected land.

If this is a move to transfer control of the land to the states, then how can the Fed Gov sell it off for a song?

I'm not understanding where one line of thinking intersects the other.

Be aware, Jersey Girl, that you're quoting liberal/progressive publications. Not saying they're wrong, but you might want to get a reading from the Wall Street Journal as well.

I just yesterday put my foot on the path, Mak. This is just a starting place.

[_Res Ipsa]

Jersey Girl, thanks for posting the article. I think two issues are getting confused. The federal government already has the power to give public lands to the states or (I think) private companies or individuals. The rule doesn't change that at all.

The rule does make it mechanically easier by avoiding requirements of the sequester. But the GOP could avoid the sequester without deception by amending or repealing the sequester, cutting something else, or raising taxes. More importantly, it makes it politically easier by allowing the GOP to claim the role of deficit hawks while actually increasing the deficit.