A move is expected this week to get the House GOP on the record for transferring federal lands to states and tribes in a bid to both eliminate some red ink in the federal budget and to help grow local economies.
A memo prepared by the House Natural Resources Committee, chaired by Utah Rep. Rob Bishop, asserts that, "Federal lands create a burden for the surrounding states and communities. These lands cannot be taxed and are in disrepair (agencies estimate a $22 billion-and growing maintenance backlog). Often mingled with private land, federal lands isolate communities, limit growth and adversely impact private property rights."
According to the memo, which was published Monday morning by the Think Progress non-profit on the Climate Change page of its website, also asks that Congress appropriate $50 million "to allow for these conveyances to start immediately."
According to the report, Rep. Bishop wants the memo to be included in the House GOP's budget resolution when it is drafted Wednesday.
The House Committee on Natural Resources (the Committee) recognizes that real reductions in spending must occur in order to solve our budget crisis and reduce the national debt. While careful consideration must be given to ensure that valued federal activities and lands are protected and that necessary cuts do not impede economic growth, tough decisions have to be made. Wasteful, duplicative, and unnecessary spending should be eliminated.
In addition to spending cuts, the President’s budget should also acknowledge that our public lands and natural resources are not only job creators, but economic boosters that bring new funds to the federal Treasury to help pay down the national debt. But imposing new taxes, new regulations, and new fees – as the President’s budget does – will have the opposite effect. It will stifle growth, send American jobs overseas, and forfeit opportunities for new revenue.
Keeping public lands and waters open to public enjoyment and recreation, along with the smart management of our resources, is vital to a strong and healthy economy. This budget should focus on promoting new energy production, implementing active forest management, ensuring an abundance of water resources, and taking care of federal lands we already own. Instead it once again seeks to impose new taxes and new layers of red tape while blocking public access to our lands and resources.
The document does not specify how much land, if any, the National Park Service should release. But it does castigate the Park Service for the way it manages its budget.
The Committee is concerned that NPS is diverting funds away from critical needs of the existing majestic and historic park units and into projects that do not further the NPS’ essential mission to serve visitors and to preserve these parks for the future. It is disappointing that despite increases to NPS’ budget the maintenance backlog on existing parks continues to balloon and visitation continues to decline.
The President continues to propose hundreds of millions of dollars for land acquisition programs administered by NPS. These funds would be better directed toward maintenance projects addressing aging and neglected infrastructure.
After years of expanding budgets, NPS has done little to show for this in terms of increased public use and enjoyment of parks or reduction in the maintenance backlog. The Committee also notes that Obama NPS operations budgets continue to increase, which leads us to conclude that pleas of inadequate park funding may have more to do with management priorities than actual funding levels. President Obama’s unilateral creation of new park units has only put us further behind in the effort to adequately maintain the system.The Committee’s strong support for our country’s unparalleled system of parks notwithstanding, it is important to recognize the need, in coordination with NPS, to commit to finding areas of waste and lower priority spending within the budget.
Comments
Well then I guess they must not have particularly strong convictions. The fact is that the poll that counts elects people that want to reduce Federal Land ownership.
I live in a caucus state and participate in them actively. I have seen nothing like what you describe. Fact is the caucus process allows much more grass roots participation and reduces the impact of back room politics that you so frequently attack. And BTW - the Democrats use "neighborhood caucus" in Utah as well.
What you see in your Colorado caucus can't be assumed to be the same in Utah, which as others have, suggested, has a much different culture than Colorado. (Just one example: what are the odds Utah will vote to legalize smoking that noxious green weed?)
As to why people in Utah continue to elect the same politicians who seem to be "anti-public lands," there are - as you know - many factors in voter decisions.
Sadly, some voters will make decisions based stricly on party lines rather than qualifications or even issues - as long as the candidate on their party slate has a pulse, he or she will get their vote. Redrawing of voting district lines by the party in power also has an impact on elections. People tend to vote for the candidate who they preceive can do them the most good - or the least harm - on a wide range of issues most important to the voter. For that reason, incumbents pitch their ability to deliver more pork to the home folks, and that carries weight with voters.
Public lands are apparently an important issue to many people in Utah, but that single point won't tip the vote against a candidate who is seens as more appealing to voters on items such as the econonmy, lower taxes, national defense, gun rights, and a host of other issues important to many in Utah.
As a general rule, I'll offer an opinion that Republican candidates in Utah are seen as stronger on the issues listed above - with the exception of support for public lands. And...this past election, anyone nationwide running on a Democratic ticket, regardless of qualifications, had a major burden to overcome - the current occupant of the White Houjse.
So, if Utah voters continue to elect Mr. Bishops and others of his ilk, it doesn't mean they support his stance on public lands. They have to accept that as part of the overall package, and as long as the anti-federalists can continue to get the votes based on many other issues, they can simply ingnore the public opinion when it comes to public lands.
So the people in Utah are naturally more abrasive than Colorado? They have an atypical habit of shouting down those they disagree with? I doubt it. We in Colorado may reach different conclusions but I have no reason to believe the those from Utah are any less civil. The issue isn't the existence of caucuses.
And those issues typically coincide with the belief in less Federal government and less Federal Government ownership of land. I suspect the polls that Lee is seeing aren't as unbiased in their structure or accurate in their conclusion as Lee would like one to believe.
Republicans in West Virginia have no Respect for Clean
HIGH ALLEGHENY NATIONAL PARK & PRESERVE
One Year After Spill That Contaminated Drinking Water, West Virginia Legislature Tries to Roll Back Chemical Regulations
http://www.highalleghenynp.org/whatishanp.html
M13 - Did you read the bill? I see nothing in there that does what you/the article claims. Perhaps you could cite where it does what you claim.
Not all republicans are anti-wilderness. I don't necessarily buy that, although it seems that the base has a larger contingency of anti-wilderness factions. For example, Mike Simpson in Idaho has for over a decade fought to preserve the White Clouds as wilderness, and in Tennessee both Senator Corker and Alexander have just put a bill in to expand the wilderness in the state.
The Democratic caucuses in Utah are conducted fairly and politely. Anyone may speak and not be booed or shouted down. In Republican caucus meetings, however, only a very small number of people usually attend and they tend to be the more rabid Tea Party, Black Helicopter, UN hating extremists whose information diets are usually limited to Rush, Glen, Sean and Faux. At Democratic caucus meetings, we find people who are able to actually think for themselves and that, too, may be a disadvantage because there may not be a united front on all issues.
I know a number of people who are Republicans who say they attended a caucus once and will not do it again. I try to convince them that if the experience was a bad one, that is exactly why they need to go back again and again until they manage to change things. But they don't have much hope of that.
There are many more moderate Republicans fully supporting an active effort to change the caucus to a primary election. Among them are a number of former and current state legislators, former Senator Bob Bennett, and a couple of former governors. But bills to that end have been throttled in committees controlled by the power players in the state's loonislature.
Utah is not Colorado. And for that, even ec needs to give fervent thanks.
J Thomas, your post above was excellent. Thank you. The only point I'd suggest might not be completely accurate is the fact that moderate members of both parties feel they have been completely disenfranchised by THE SYSTEM and simply don't even try to participate. The biggest thing we need to do in this state is to try to somehow convince them that if they would just get out and vote, they really could make a big, big difference.
By the way, your point about voting a straight ticket is right on. In Utah, a voter may register as either Republican, Democrat, or Unaffiliated. Of registered Republicans about 80% vote straight tickets. Democrats are down somewhere around 30% and Unaffiliated are lower than that. In the last election when only 28% of eligible voters particpated, over half of that 28% were registered Republicans. It's a shame, but around here the GOP does a better job of getting out the vote. But they use a lot of fear mongering to do it.
And then, there was the gerrymandering . . . . but that's a whole 'nother story.
Funny, I don't know any Republicans that are anti-wilderness.