Plus, giving away property that helps reduce the deficit is bad optics -- it makes the proponents look fiscally irresponsible. If we want to reduce the deficit, we shouldn't be giving away the stuff that makes money. Since the GOP presents itself as the party that is fiscally responsible, giving away land that produces income is a PR problem.
So what's the solution? Simply avoid the House's own rules by making a new rule that makes the deficit increase magically disappear. That way, the GOP avoids the CBO saying that a particular sale increases the deficit.
Of course, at the end of the year, when we add up the revenues and the spending, the deficit will be bigger. But the GOP will find something else to blame. Poor people, most likely.
Jersey Girl wrote: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.
Well, there will be fiscal consequences to the federal government. At the end of the year, assuming the Grand Canyon Is profitable, the deficit will be larger. All the rule does is allows the GOP to pretend it is not increasing the deficit when it actually is.
Jersey Girl wrote:Gunnar wrote: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.
"The media" isn't stuffing this down our collective throats. I pulled up the NYT and WP reporting on the rules. They describe it correctly. They don't report what the piece you read says: that the rule change was enacted to give public land to the oil companies. I'm going to look at the piece you read again to see if I can figure out where that came from.
Ok, I reread the Think Progress piece in the OP. It doesn't say anything about the federal government giving land to the oil companies. It does express concerns that land given to the states would be given away or sold to private parties.
Jersey Girl wrote: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?
No, the rule doesn't say that the Grand Canyon doesn't exist. It says that the GOP gets to avoid its own rules and pretend that it isn't increasing the deficit when it actually is.
I don't think the federal government has the power to assess a property or income tax on a state. There would be a little sovereignty problem there.
As far as what would happen if ownership of Yellowstone were transferred to WY and MT, who knows. The State legislatures would be free to do with the land as they wished.
I think it would be very hard for states to resist the pressure to develop or sell public lands because they have to balance their budgets and voters don't seem to want to pay taxes. I have no doubt that if profitable federal lands were given to my state, there would be a initiative on the ballot to pass the benefits on to the taxpayer.