I understand the need for the federal government to own and administer land in a few, limited cases. For example, military bases, national parks, and the right of ways of interstate highways, federal prisons and a few others. However, this does not begin to explain the amount of land owned and controlled by the federal government in the western US. If the federal government refuses to freely cede the land back to the states, why couldnt it sell the land to those states and the money made used to pay down our astounding federal debt? The voters in those states could then decide on the use of that land. That probably makes too much sense. The environmental activists who run the EPA and the BLM would never go along with this plan because it would open up huge areas for energy exploration by private industry. It is said that, with the advent of modern technology, we are very nearly energy independent. Here again is an idea that would be beneficial for America and the states in profit, taxes and jobs, so, of course, theyll refuse to consider it. I have yet to read a rational explanation of why it is the business of the federal government to own this much land. 87% in Nevada alone. I dont think very many of us any idea how much land is actually involved. Any justification that does not involve more central government power is difficult to imagine. Perhaps its time to consider stripping a bit of that power away. If there is a good reason why this cannot be done, let them present it, and if there is such a reason, I hope it is not simply because we can.....
Posted on: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 12:35:57 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015