Senate vote public lands sale

[mtwarden]

One thing I wonder out loud about is the parliamentarian ruled twice that Lee’s addition didn’t meet the requirements of the Byrd rule, but let it slide the 3rd time.

Other than reducing the acres, nothing changed—why did she let it slide the third time?

It was deemed extraneous two times, but not the third??????

 

[Wheels]

One thing I wonder out loud about is the parliamentarian ruled twice that Lee’s addition didn’t meet the requirements of the Byrd rule, but let it slide the 3rd time.

Other than reducing the acres, nothing changed—why did she let it slide the third time?

It was deemed extraneous two times, but not the third??????

Back door deals were most certainly made.

 

[3325]

Posting this on all the related threads:

Sen. Mike Lee Waves White Flag And Gives Up Public Lands Sell-Off Plan

Utah Sen. Mike Lee waved the white flag on Saturday evening and dropped his controversial public lands-selloff plan. Wyoming State Rep. Karlee Provenza…

cowboystatedaily.com

 

[Yoder]

The only way I would agree with selling any of our land would be if they went through it all and looked for very small pieces that suck, right next to towns and cities. A ten acre plot of dirt and grass next to a Walmart for example. I would be ok selling that. Anything else, NO!

 

[CorbLand]

The only way I would agree with selling any of our land would be if they went through it all and looked for very small pieces that suck, right next to towns and cities. A ten acre plot of dirt and grass next to a Walmart for example. I would be ok selling that. Anything else, NO!

I would rather try to see them land swap it than sell it.

 

[Hun10-freak]

I want to know why so many Republican Senators were ok with this...

 

[elkhunter505]

One thing I wonder out loud about is the parliamentarian ruled twice that Lee’s addition didn’t meet the requirements of the Byrd rule, but let it slide the 3rd time.

Other than reducing the acres, nothing changed—why did she let it slide the third time?

It was deemed extraneous two times, but not the third??????

I saw something added in that said land would be sold to the highest bidder or something like that and that’s how it ended up being budget compliant.

 

[manitou1]

The only way I would agree with selling any of our land would be if they went through it all and looked for very small pieces that suck, right next to towns and cities. A ten acre plot of dirt and grass next to a Walmart for example. I would be ok selling that. Anything else, NO!

Wouldn’t matter.
Once you open that can of worms it is all over for our public lands.

Income tax is illegal.
It oassed as a way to pay off war debt… temporarily and was capped at 10%.

Now we are at 37%.

As a 35 year (retired) fed employee… I can guarantee one thing… this would be abused as a cookie jar and would not stop until all piblic lands (except parks) were sold off.

 

[Tilzbow]

Wouldn’t matter.
Once you open that can of worms it is all over for our public lands.

Income tax is illegal.
It oassed as a way to pay off war debt… temporarily and was capped at 10%.

Now we are at 37%.

As a 35 year (retired) fed employee… I can guarantee one thing… this would be abused as a cookie jar and would not stop until all piblic lands (except parks) were sold off.

You are aware the BLM can legally sell off the land it manages and has been able to for decades?

 

[JFK]

Seeing the mass opposition to large sales of public land, I believe next time they will try to parse it out into smaller chunks. Perhaps 1 or 2 states at a time to limit the mass pushback. That, or they will try to make it happen by circumventing the legislative process and create a loophole through executive order, court case, etc.

 

[Tilzbow]

To add to my post above since the portion of the bill discussed in this thread was removed and “building affordable houses” on federal lands is one of Trump’s promises, I don’t think it’s out of the realm of possibilities that Trump gives his secretary of the interior, Burgum, a mandate for the BLM to identify lands to be sold, traded, etc under already established laws (see link). It’ll take more time than had the bill passed, will have more guardrails and won’t be as much acreage but I know there’s plenty of BLM land around where live that would be ideal for development.

https://www.blm.gov/programs/lands-and-realty/sales-and-exchanges

 

[Poser]

I want to know why so many Republican Senators were ok with this...

For many of them, If they get kicked out of the MAGA club, it ends their careers as Senators as they will not be re-elected, either due to their constituents or because MAGA will endorse a competitor and disavow the traitor. There are some exceptions, though. Some states lack MAGA unity amongst the constituents even though they will reliably elect a Republican of some type. There are even a few senators who just won’t fully bend the knee, yet carry enough influence that it’s difficult for MAGA to retaliate.

 

[Axlrod]

I hate almost everyone in politics. They are all a bunch of self-serving scum bags. They need to do a financial audit of everyone. Anyone with shady finances gets fired and put in prison for life for treason. I'll bet it would get rid of 95% of them.

The problem is the two "they's" you mention are the same people. So not gonna happen.

Selling some of the land locked public would be good if, ALL the funds were used to increase access to public land. Like purchasing private land that also had land locked public. Not gonna happen.

The large private land owners, that have exclusive access to public land, point out the value of the public land when they are selling their land. Or when they are suing someone for tress pass. As in the case of the corner crossing law suit in Wyoming. So their property taxes should reflect this additional value, that they freely admit to. Again not gonna happen.

My point is the government isn't here to help. But there are organizations that do help. The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, to name just one. Has opened, and or protected 1.6 million acres of wild country. They have done this with 225,000 members. Just think if they had 10x that many members.

 

[7mm-08]

One thing I wonder out loud about is the parliamentarian ruled twice that Lee’s addition didn’t meet the requirements of the Byrd rule, but let it slide the 3rd time.

Other than reducing the acres, nothing changed—why did she let it slide the third time?

It was deemed extraneous two times, but not the third??????

Excellent question here. Oh, and please remember to thank your elected officials (if they came out in support of stripping the public land sale provision from the Bill).

 

[ODB]

Excellent question here. Oh, and please remember to thank your elected officials (if they came out in support of stripping the public land sale provision from the Bill).

Yup. Doing it today.

Now, can we put as much energy into pushing back on what’s happening in NY? It is as much a bellwether for disaster as Lee’s inarticulate bill.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

 

[Idaboy]

Other than certain law makers, I have not seen a coherent discussion from any group that is not financially motivated/would stand to benefit from public land sales. No grass roots efforts to sell reads to me as all special interest and big money behind this push...hopefully this is the end of it for this year and Lee drops this long term.

Appreciate this thread and people's efforts to say no to.

 

[average]

Yup. Doing it today.

Now, can we put as much energy into pushing back on what’s happening in NY? It is as much a bellwether for disaster as Lee’s inarticulate bill.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

What's happening in NY?

 

[Dos Perros]

Anyone else wondering, now that the public lands part is dead, what the hell is actually in this bill? Starting to think it was a bait/switch or distract type psyop.

 

[mtwarden]

Oh, and please remember to thank your elected officials (if they came out in support of stripping the public land sale provision from the Bill).

Done and done.

 

[Poser]

Anyone else wondering, now that the public lands part is dead, what the hell is actually in this bill? Starting to think it was a bait/switch or distract type psyop.

Was the bit about the courts not being able to issue an injunction against the executive branch removed?
If not, that's some insane legislation that effectively voids the separation of powers.