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
And you know this because of all the Republican caucuses you have attended?
Perhaps an attempt at some wry humor? Clearly, there are a lot of Republicans ec hasn't met yet :-) A Google search for the terms "Republican politicans opposed to wilderness areas only got "about 54,900,000 results." Here's a small sample. from Alaska.The official platform for the Montana Republican party says "The Montana Republican Party opposes the creation of any additional wilderness areas."
Are there republicans who are pro-wilderness and pro-public lands? Sure, but it seems the party of Teddy Roosevelt not longer exists in large measure.
As to challenging Lee's descriptions of caucuses in Utah, it's only fair to ask how many of them ec has attended.
Yes. And accounts of caucuses others have attended. Olene Walker, a former Utah governor has a very interesting story about her caucus experiences. So do many others. Testimony at the legislative committee hearings on the "Count My Vote" effort were filled with descriptions of abuse in caucus meetings. Even Mitt Romney (yes, that Mitt) came out in favor of Count My Vote. But the bill died in committee despite efforts by a large number of representatives to get it through. Why? Because the power core knows they would lose their ability to dictate who will and who won't be on the ballot.
Almost all caucus meetings are held in private homes. There are many accounts of people being turned away because "there is no more room." (Although I've never personally experienced that, it does happen fairly frequently according to others.) Another means of controlling attendance at caucus meetings is for the faithful to show up 30 to 60 minutes early so there may really not be any room left for those who arrive at the advertised time. Some witnesses at the hearings told of being ordered to leave by the caucus host when their opinions clashed with the party commissars' agenda.
Count My Vote was born out of a petition drive a couple of years ago that easily exceeded the Draconian requirements for citizen petitions that was rammed through the legislature several years earlier in an attempt to make such things virtually impossible. Then, the GOP offered a "compromise" in return for the citizen group dropping the petitions. Now the GOP leaders are trying to renege on the "compromise" they engineered.
It's ironic that people who claim to revere the Constitution as Divinely Inspired think it's perfectly okay to deny others their First Amendment rights at those gatherings.
I don't pretend to be an expert on caucus meetings in Colorado and find it ridiculous that someone from Colorado can presume to lecture us about meetings in Utah. But then, I'm not a world renowned expert on EVERYTHING.
http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/2202422-155/editorial-utah-should-proceed-...
http://www.sltrib.com/home/2280648-155/elections-last-years-count-my-vote
http://www.utahfoundation.org/reports/nominating-candidates-the-politics...
http://www.stgeorgeutah.com/news/archive/2014/01/14/mgk-trust-voters-or-...
The opposition to "the creation of addional wilderness areas" is not the same as "the oppositon to wilderness."
Thanks for the heresay Lee. It suits your purposes. And fits your style.
Lee...
I like what you're saying, but you're really putting your hand close to sticking it into the chinese-fingertrap.
Ah. ec is into hair-splitting mode. Okay, I'll play along. Opening the provided link to the platform for the Montana Republican party yield the following additional things that party is opposed to - which bring us back to the original subject of the current thread:
"We oppose the federal government ... exercising authority over land use and natural resource decisions in Montana. We oppose any federal special land designations. We urge the Montana Congressional delegation to sunset wilderness study areas. We support the granting of federally managed public lands to the state, and development of a transition plan for the timely and orderly transfer..."
Wilderness is just one example of "federal special land designations," as well as "land use and natural resource decisions." Since neither of us was in the room when the platform was written, feel free to disagree with my interpretation if you wish, but I'm headed out to enjoy some federally-owned public land.:-)
JT - Not hair splitting at all. Pure fact that get in the way of those trying to put up strawmen. If one were "anti-Wilderness" they would be call for the elimination of Wilderness which that platform is not doing. And removing land from Federal designation doesn't mean they will necessarily change the land use.