Give away public lands? What?

[_Res Ipsa]

I cut and pasted from HR 5, which enacted a bunch of rule changes.

(q) TREATMENT OF CONVEYANCES OF FEDERAL
LAND.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—In the One Hundred Fif- teenth Congress, for all purposes in the House, a provision in a bill or joint resolution, or in an amendment thereto or a conference report thereon, requiring or authorizing a conveyance of Federal land to a State, local government, or tribal entity shall not be considered as providing new budget au- thority, decreasing revenues, increasing mandatory spending, or increasing outlays.

(2) DEFINITIONS.—In this subsection:

(A) The term ‘‘conveyance’’ means any method, including sale, donation, or exchange, by which all or any portion of the right, title, and interest of the United States in and to
Federal land is transferred to another entity.

(B) The term ‘‘Federal land’’ means any land owned by the United States, including the surface estate, the subsurface estate, or any im-
provements thereon.

(C) The term ‘‘State’’ means any of the
several States, the District of Columbia, or a territory (including a possession) of the United States.

So, you can see, the rule change does not apply to transfers of federal land to a private entity. And, federal land means all federal land. And it includes buildings (i.e., improvements)

[_Jersey Girl]

We also need to see a document on this, otherwise we're spitting in the wind.

What documentation do you want to see? The text of the rule?

Yes. I haven't taken time yet to try to find it.

So, you can see, the rule change does not apply to transfers of federal land to a private entity. And, federal land means all federal land. And it includes buildings (i.e., improvements)

Thanks! On first read, I'm getting a mountain out of a molehill vibe. Now I have to read it 500 times before I see it for what it really says. Will do.

[_Res Ipsa]

So, you can see, the rule change does not apply to transfers of federal land to a private entity. And, federal land means all federal land. And it includes buildings (i.e., improvements)

Thanks! On first read, I'm getting a mountain out of a molehill vibe. Now I have to read it 500 times before I see it for what it really says. Will do.

You're welcome. I suspect it's somewhere between mountain and molehill.

I have two main concerns about the rule change. The first is hiding the deficit through budget gimmicks. Budget gimmicks like treating the costs of fighting a war as "off budget" are a significant part of creating the deficit we have today. Bobby Jindal drove Louisiana into the ground financially by using these kind of smoke and mirrors tricks. If we genuinely want to reduce the deficit, we have to start with being honest about the impact of Congress's actions on revenues and spending. Congress should be accountable for the people's money, and this rule is the exact opposite of accountability. I think this is more of a mountain than a molehill, as it goes to the heart of accountability by lawmakers to the people.

The second is that it reinforces the use of what's now being called "alternative facts." We used to call those "not facts" or "false" or "lies." That, in my opinion, is the biggest threat to our nation today. We should not encourage it by adopting rules that allows the Congress to treat up as down or hot as cold.

I do have concerns about transferring federal lands to the states, but I'd rather address that issue directly as opposed to discussing them through this rule change. Does that make sense?

I need to correct some stuff I said upthread. When I referred to the sequester, I was really thinking about what's called PAYGO -- a law/rule that require any legislation to pay for itself so as not to increase the deficit. What the sequester does is institute mandatory across the board spending cuts if spending bumps into a designated cap. So, if the sale of public lands added enough to the deficit, the sequester's across the board spending cuts could be triggered.

[_Jersey Girl]

Let me offer an analogy that I understand better. A couple of years back a healthcare professional whose spouse was a psychologist, told me that her husband went to a conference in a major city for training in his field and whose primary interest was in treating veterans.

She said (she said-he said, I know) that he learned that the government was now reporting suicide by members of the armed forces as "combat related injury" instead of a mental health category, so when one looks at the numbers, it looks like the suicide rate is decreasing and "aren't we doing a great job addressing mental health with our veterans? Go us!!" when the numbers are obscured in another category.

This is similar, right?

(Don't take the above as gospel, it's just hearsay)

Okay, I'm going to take a crack at this. Watch how stupid I really am. No really, watch. God help us all and the Jersey Girl.

(q) TREATMENT OF CONVEYANCES OF FEDERAL
LAND.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—In the One Hundred Fif- teenth Congress, for all purposes in the House, a provision in a bill or joint resolution, or in an amendment thereto or a conference report thereon, requiring or authorizing a conveyance of Federal land to a State, local government, or tribal entity shall not be considered as providing new budget au- thority, decreasing revenues, increasing mandatory spending, or increasing outlays.

How is the above NOT "providing new budget au- thority, decreasing revenues, increasing mandatory spending, or increasing outlays"? How do you assign conveyance authority without effecting the budget? WTF, is that some kind of Jedi mind trick?

(2) DEFINITIONS.—In this subsection:

(A) The term ‘‘conveyance’’ means any method, including sale, donation, or exchange, by which all or any portion of the right, title, and interest of the United States in and to
Federal land is transferred to another entity.

This determines through which methods the ownership is transferred.

(B) The term ‘‘Federal land’’ means any land owned by the United States, including the surface estate, the subsurface estate, or any im-
provements thereon.

Existing structures (buildings), land and mineral rights. Improvements could be culverts, bridges, roads, fences, landscaping, additions to existing buildings, light poles, sewers, wells, what the hell do I know, I live in the woods.

(C) The term ‘‘State’’ means any of the
several States, the District of Columbia, or a territory (including a possession) of the United States.

Simply specifies the extent and boundaries that constitute "State".

Show me where I am wrong.

[_Res Ipsa]

Let me offer an analogy that I understand better. A couple of years back a healthcare professional whose spouse was a psychologist, told me that her husband went to a conference in a major city for training in his field and whose primary interest was in treating veterans.

She said (she said-he said, I know) that he learned that the government was now reporting suicide by members of the armed forces as "combat related injury" instead of a mental health category, so when one looks at the numbers, it looks like the suicide rate is decreasing and "aren't we doing a great job addressing mental health with our veterans? Go us!!" when the numbers are obscured in another category.

This is similar, right?

(Don't take the above as gospel, it's just hearsay)

Yes, I think it's similar.

[_Gunnar]

Thanks for bringing up this concern, Jersey Girl. I think it is definitely worth thinking about, and the more we are aware of and understand things like this, the more we will be able to hold our elected officials accountable for their decisions and actions, and the better we can influence hold our elected representatives to actually represent we the people, who voted for them, rather than their own selfish self-interests.

[_Res Ipsa]

Jersey Girl, wrong about what?

I think you're reading the rule correctly. And, yes, it's like a Jedi mind trick. The actual trick is in the word "considered."

Using your example above, it would be like a regulation that said "suicides of veterans shall not be considered suicides but shall be considered combat related casualties."

[_Jersey Girl]

Okay, going back in to make a bigger ass of myself. Don't care at this point. I need to chop this up before I can cook it in my head. (This is really how I think, I can't believe I'm doing this in public)

(1) IN GENERAL.—In the One Hundred Fif- teenth Congress, for all purposes in the House,

a provision in a bill or joint resolution, or in an amendment thereto or a conference report thereon, requiring or authorizing a conveyance of Federal land


to a State, local government, or tribal entity

Okay, first off it's talking about transferring (through sale, donation what the hell else it described) TO a State, local government or tribal entity.

So where in the heck does anyone come up with the Fed Gov is going to give away land to Big Oil? Or did they really mean state and/or local government???

Next, I can't even think. Okay...

shall not be considered as providing new budget au- thority, decreasing revenues, increasing mandatory spending, or increasing outlays.

So you can do all of the above, but you can't document it in the budget, no incorporating it into any of the line items, no crap.

Ow my brain hurts.

[_Res Ipsa]

I'm not seeing the part where you make an ass of yourself.

There are folks who think that any energy policy proposed by the GOP is a giveaway to oil and gas industry. That's how misinformation gets started and then folks uncritically repeat it in the blogosphere and on Facebook. That's why doing what you did here -- going to the primary sources and verifying as much as you can is so important.

[_Jersey Girl]

Stay in it, Jersey, stay in it. If anyone gives me crap for these posts, I swear, I'll make you wish that you didn't.

shall not be considered as providing new budget au- thority, decreasing revenues, increasing mandatory spending, or increasing outlays.

So you can do all of the above, but you can't document it in the budget, no incorporating it into any of the line items, no crap.

Ow my brain hurts.

So you can do all of the above, but you can't document it in the budget, on any of the listed line items, because why?

Because I don't know why.

Because we the Fed are going to give it away to you the State, local government or tribal nation, and we're not going to accept money for it, therefore, it's not going in the checking account register because we want to make it look like it's a gift (or some crap like that) so it's like it never happened and it's not worth anything...but you're going to take it over and figure out what the hell to do with it...and if it costs you money, that's on you.

I'm getting brain zaps now. Just for the record.

So if we want to dump the Grand Canyon off on Arizona, we're going to dump it without fiscal consequence to ourselves and if you want to make money off it, fine. If you want to drill “F” out of it, fine.

Because all we care about is making ourselves look good on paper.

So the Grand Canyon effectively doesn't exist until it shows up on YOUR budget.

And what about this. The Grand Canyon effectively doesn't exist until it shows up on YOUR budget and then...does the Fed get to tax the hell out of Arizona for owning the Grand Canyon now?

Like is Arizona going to get a monstrosity of something like a 1099 for receiving the land and then will can Arizona be taxed for this by the Fed at all? And if so, forever?

Thanks for bringing up this concern, Jersey Girl. I think it is definitely worth thinking about, and the more we are aware of and understand things like this, the more we will be able to hold our elected officials accountable for their decisions and actions, and the better we can influence hold our elected representatives to actually represent we the people, who voted for them, rather than their own selfish self-interests.

And maybe we won't fall for every stinking assertion that the media is stuffing down our collective throats either and I, at least, won't have to worry about people freaking out around me for no good reason because maybe I can get to the truth of the matter.

I still don't know if Big Oil can get it's hands on these lands/properties. I suppose (if I understand anything or can even think right now) that the state/local governments could sell off land for fracking or what have you, then...is that going to be something we get to vote on at state/local level?

Seems like we would?

I just want to know what's going to happen to the protected open spaces and National Parks. I guess Yellowstone would be a state park?

Because at the beginning of this thread, the question on the table was...is the Fed reducing the land value to zero so it can give it away to Big Oil?

I don't think that assertion makes sense at this point.

So far, besides the budget manipulation, I think I might be okay with this. I need to keep beating the horse and then I'll probably come back and give it one more good kick just to be sure it's dead in my mind.