Ted Cruz

[5MilesBack]

First,

This is changing the discussion, as no politician has proposed a Constitutional Amendment like this, that I am aware of, and certainly not Cruz.

Well, of course. Texas has no Federal land to transfer. This would have to originate in each of the western states, and most likely not by a politician. This is a state by state thing, as each state has no authority over another state. Why would the state "have" to sell just because they can't afford to manage them? On the other hand, if mineral rights go to the states as well as the surface rights......there always is the possibility of funding management that way. But then you'd be back to a lease option.

But I'm wondering why you think the states would "have to sell" but you don't believe the Feds "have to sell". Neither can afford to manage them so what's the difference. Gee, the states could just follow the Federal Government's lead and keep going into further debt to manage them.

 

[5MilesBack]

Why would the states do that?

The states don't do that.......the people initiate it, and then it's voted on in a statewide election.

 

[dotman]

I don't believe the Constitution allows for Federal control over "state" land. So if the land was transferred, the Feds can't dictate how the state uses it, or even what they do with it.

Truthfully there could be an argument that the state borders go around federal land. Washington DC is federal land as well. Indian reservations are not state land but yet shown within state borders, same could be said about federal land in the west, show me what gives each state the right to federal land and it will also apply then to Indian Reservations, not sure border have been drawn accurately when you consider Federal lands and then include Reservation lands of which no state has any right to govern. Borders could be redrawn I would assume? But more then likely I'm way out there just rambling.

I do get a kick out of the people that say give ME MY LAND back to federal land ownership, if these lands are transferred to the states there is a high likely hood that even state residents will have zero access as they could easily be sold or leased to private interests for their resources and no recreation access allowed.

 

[tipsntails7]

The states don't do that.......the people initiate it, and then it's voted on in a statewide election.

Your a master at the art of deflection... Why would states want land with restrictions attached to how that land can be used?

 

[dotman]

Your a master at the art of deflection... Why would states want land with restrictions attached to how that land can be used?

Only way they would agree to that is if the Federal Gov supplements or completely pays for management in that scenario. No state will accept limitations and take the financial burden as well.

 

[tipsntails7]

Only way they would agree to that is if the Federal Gov supplements or completely pays for management in that scenario. No state will accept limitations and take the financial burden as well.

That's pretty much the point I'm trying to make to 5MB. It's a fool hearty pipe dream to think something like that will happen.

 

[Matt Cashell]

But I'm wondering why you think the states would "have to sell" but you don't believe the Feds "have to sell". Neither can afford to manage them so what's the difference. Gee, the states could just follow the Federal Government's lead and keep going into further debt to manage them.

MT would have to sell it. MT has a constitutional requirement to balance the budget. MT has been in the green with a surplus for many years.

Even if MT could legally operate in the red (say by another Constitutional Amendment - good luck getting that passed), I don't think Montanans would much care for splitting the management costs of Federal lands in MT currently divided among 122 million American taxpayers suddenly being divided among 377,000 Montana taxpayers.

I am NOT ok with the US Governments overspending in any way, but the Federal Land Management budget is a tiny sliver of the gargantuan Federal Pie, and the US government could fund it appropriately with even relatively minor belt tightening in other areas.

 

[mtmiller]

But I'm wondering why you think the states would "have to sell" but you don't believe the Feds "have to sell". Neither can afford to manage them so what's the difference.

I don't think Montanans would much care for splitting the management costs of Federal lands in MT currently divided among 122 million American taxpayers suddenly being divided among 377,000 Montana taxpayers.

Exactly.

 

[BroodBuster]

Wa. also has a constitutional amendment stating that each biannual budget is balanced. The state is actually paying a fine each day to the courts because there's not enough money in the budget for education. Unless Wa. can make money off that land it will have to be sold.

 

[1hoda]

The Feds at one time sold timber, a renewable source of revenue. (What politician wouldn't cozy up to that?) States could do the same thing to pay the bills.

 

[tipsntails7]

The Feds at one time sold timber, a renewable source of revenue. (What politician wouldn't cozy up to that?) States could do the same thing to pay the bills.

They do, the problem is how states manage land and the access they afford to the public. Most if not all states would not be able to pay the bills with just timber revenue.

 

[5MilesBack]

Your a master at the art of deflection... Why would states want land with restrictions attached to how that land can be used?

Only way they would agree to that is if the Federal Gov supplements or completely pays for management in that scenario. No state will accept limitations and take the financial burden as well.

You guys obviously don't understand the process because you keep ignoring it, or keep deflecting back to some Federal mandate to the states that doesn't exist.

 

[5MilesBack]

MT would have to sell it. MT has a constitutional requirement to balance the budget. As do many states.

Even if MT could legally operate in the red (say by another Constitutional Amendment - good luck getting that passed), I don't think Montanans would much care for splitting the management costs of Federal lands in MT currently divided among 122 million American taxpayers suddenly being divided among 377,000 Montana taxpayers. Does the land HAVE to be managed? And what are those management requirements?

I am NOT ok with the US Governments overspending in any way, but the Federal Land Management budget is a tiny sliver of the gargantuan Federal Pie, and the US government could fund it appropriately with even relatively minor belt tightening in other areas.

So by robbing Peter to pay Paul. Oh yes, MANY, MANY cuts could be made to our existing budgets. And quite frankly needs to be made. I don't think people truly understand the gravity of where we are as a nation right now. Like I've said before, when it all sinks in public land will be the least of everyone's worries.

In the debate last night, one of the candidates (can't remember which one) made a statement that within 5 years (I think he said), 83% of our annual budget would be made up by just medicare, medicade, social security, and the interest on our national debt (I might have left out something else....can't remember). That leaves just 17% of every year's budget for everything else.......which includes defense, and every single other government agency and employee. That's pretty scary. Those figures may not be exact, but they should be close enough to open people's eyes and get them thinking.

 

[5MilesBack]

None of these options are easy decisions for anyone. But it's getting down to that point where the Federal Government is going to get to a point where the options are "MT do you want the Fed land within your borders?".........and "OK, if you don't want it, we're going to have to sell it". Which of those two options benefits the Federal Government more?

 

[jmez]

As to the OP, there is no way Cruz gets the nod. He was simply awful last night. He made Ben Carson look competent and that is saying something. Hilary has one of the worst "on stage" presentations I've ever seen. That is, until I saw Cruz last night. He isn't a threat.

 

[tipsntails7]

You guys obviously don't understand the process because you keep ignoring it, or keep deflecting back to some Federal mandate to the states that doesn't exist.

You keep acting like the states would be willing to inherit the costs of managing that land with restrictions they would self impose on what they can and cannot do to or with that land. We get it, you apparently feel states could adopt individual bills, mandates, amendments, whatever you want to call them and everything would work out perfect. It's absolutely delusional.. You live in a state where if Colorado took control of all the fed land, it would immediately end all backcountry hunting. Does that seriously sound like a good idea to you??
You have yet to shed light on why you think the transfer of these lands to the states would benefit the outdoorsman...
Not in some magic world where this would get passed, that would get passed, let's try the real world.

Today, start the process of getting the state of Colorado to allow camping on all state lands.. Get back to us when you get that worked out. Sense you seem to think it's so easy to impart rules and regulations on land use and management .

I guess I just cannot see your point in the slightest. So you want lands open for access like federal land currently is? You want permission to use the land for hunting, fishing, camping and other recreation like fed land currently is. But you just want to be able to say it's the states land?? Why?? What benefit do you get from that?

 

[Matt Cashell]

5MB,

Yes public lands need to be managed, of course.

None of these options are easy decisions for anyone. But it's getting down to that point where the Federal Government is going to get to a point where the options are "MT do you want the Fed land within your borders?".........and "OK, if you don't want it, we're going to have to sell it". Which of those two options benefits the Federal Government more?

This is a classic case of the false dilemma fallacy.

You have posted before that selling the lands wouldn't solve the debt problem.

Federal public lands, with all of their management warts, are one of the few great successes of the Federal Government. They are one area that most Americans agree that tax money should be spent. Your own post shows that there are lots of areas where the government needs reform to cut spending, and get control of the debt. Great! Leave public lands out of it.

 

[5MilesBack]

Your own post shows that there are lots of areas where the government needs reform to cut spending, and get control of the debt. Great! Leave public lands out of it.

Ya, forget about the other million lobbyists that want spending cuts everywhere else except.......those areas. Now you're all in the same boat. Who gets thrown out of the boat? And who decides which is right or a higher priority? This isn't easy stuff.

 

[5MilesBack]

As to the OP, there is no way Cruz gets the nod. He was simply awful last night.

I agree that he will never get the nod, but Trump looked like an imbecile last night. He has no answers to anything.......just "It's going to be great". He really is a legend in his own mind. LOL.

 

[Trial153]

http://www.hcn.org/articles/how-an-east-coast-think-tank-is-fueling-the-land-transfer-movement