Obama wants to double conservation spending, buy more federal land

posted at 2:15 pm on April 4, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

The United States already has over $14,000,000,000,000 in debt, and runs an annual budget deficit of more than $1,600,000,000,000.  The federal government already owns almost a third of all land in the United States, which precludes it from commercial use in most cases, and which costs taxpayers a fortune to maintain.  Barack Obama thinks this situation has to change — which is why he’s proposing to, er, buy more land and spend more on conservation:

President Obama says he’s constantly telling his two daughters to turn off the television, stop using Skype and go outside. He wants to get more American kids off the couch and out the door, reconnecting with the world and its natural beauty.

And he wants to make it easier for Americans to use parks and public lands, saying that too many “can go days without stepping on a single blade of grass.”

Toward that end, the president wants Congress to double spending — to $900 million next year — on a conservation fund that’s used to buy more property for the federal government. Currently, the government owns 635 million acres, or roughly three out of every 10 acres, with the largest chunk in Alaska.

Obama launched his re-election campaign today on the promise to extend whatever change he’s brought to Washington, but buying land and spending money is just more business as usual.  We should be discussing the sale of federal properties in order to raise capital and reduce costs.  Given the results of last year’s midterms, the worst possible message Obama can send is the notion that we should increase discretionary spending in order to lock more natural resources away from taxpayers.

The National Park Service wants to spend almost $2 billion in buying land, but Republicans aren’t biting.  Senator Lisa Murkoswki of Alaska, a state that has most of its land under federal control, reminded Interior Secretary Ken Salazar last week that the government can’t keep up with maintenance on lands it already owns, and that Interior actually would have to cut its maintenance budget to buy more land.  Rep. Doc Hastings, chair of the House Natural Resources Committee, made the same point, saying that the federal government needs to fix what it does now before proposing expansion.

It’s actually more basic than that.  We need less land under federal control, not more, and we need more exploration and recovery of our natural resources — especially on energy — rather than less.  The federal government should focus on what it can cut, not what it can buy.  It’s hard to imagine an idea that shows Obama less in touch with the concerns of Americans than a land-grab spending spree.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

http://strangemaps.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/map-owns_the_west.jpg

Does the gov’t own enough already?

Abby Adams on April 4, 2011 at 2:20 PM

Barry is just blowing off to impress the tree huggers.

He’s opened his campaign, so we can expect a lot of ‘throw away’ lines from now on.

GarandFan on April 4, 2011 at 2:20 PM

This won’t get anyone off the couch & into nature.
What it’ll do is lock up ‘sensitive’ lands so that no one can access them.
This is NOT about conservation.
It is all about power.
Confiscate people’s land, forcefully shape communities by doing this, & you control the people.

Badger40 on April 4, 2011 at 2:20 PM

Ain’t seen nothin’, yet. If he gets re-elected, fooling the U.S. voters for a 2nd round, he’ll have not limits to his destruction.

If that happens, the people and their progeny deserve said destruction, fully, 100%. May they then be scroomed harshly.

Schadenfreude on April 4, 2011 at 2:20 PM

Why the eff does the federal gubmint own so much land to start with?? Don’t they already have enough relocation and reeducation camps??

TugboatPhil on April 4, 2011 at 2:21 PM

Just say no! to Obama.

ORconservative on April 4, 2011 at 2:22 PM

Senator Lisa Murkoswki of Alaska, a state that has most of its land under federal control, reminded Interior Secretary Ken Salazar last week that the government can’t keep up with maintenance on lands it already owns, and that Interior actually would have to cut its maintenance budget to buy more land.

Why do you need to spend money on land that is supposed to be “preserved”? Isn’t that letting it revert to it’s natural state?

If a landlord can’t make money they go out of business.

Oil Can on April 4, 2011 at 2:22 PM

http://strangemaps.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/map-owns_the_west.jpg

Does the gov’t own enough already?

Abby Adams on April 4, 2011 at 2:20 PM

Wow. The President doesn’t own much of Iowa, but they sure own the Presidency.

TugboatPhil on April 4, 2011 at 2:22 PM

And just how much of this land just happens to be sitting on oil, gas, mineral, precious metal, etc, reserves?

CurtZHP on April 4, 2011 at 2:24 PM

Buy more federal land: code for constraining economic development

phreshone on April 4, 2011 at 2:24 PM

Mr. President, If you want kids to “go outside and play” more, make pedophilia a capital crime. I understand it may seem counterintuitive to attack what I’m sure is one of your core constituencies. However, you’ll probably gain a few votes among those of us who think everything else you’ve done has been an abject failure.

Kataklysmic on April 4, 2011 at 2:26 PM

My folks used to live across the street from a 40,000 acre state owned hunting, fishing, snowmobiling,and quadrunning park. Since the late 1980′s that land has been restricted to non-motorized, non-hunting, fishing or camping and the park looks like a wasteland. They could sell it make a nice profit and the private owners would take better care of it than the state.

fourdeucer on April 4, 2011 at 2:27 PM

This has nothing to do with conservation or having public land available for our kids.

First, if you look at the past two years, every time Obama gets wrapped around the axle, he decides to do a hard pivot and throw another grand scheme in front of America.

Things going bad in Libya? Gitmo to have military tribunals as originally envisioned by the Bush Administration (with historical precedence to back them up)? Energy policies tangled so badly that not even the so-called experts can untie them?

Gee, let’s make another “feel good” announcement. Divert attention away from real issues.

But, second, and a bit more important, this Obama-proposed government acquisition of land means that less and less is available for private individuals or groups to actually purchase land, hold title to that land, and develop that land.

Take a look at our Indian Reservations. All government land. No ownership, no titles nor deeds. No investment nor improvements can be made by individuals…the result? Extended poverty forced on Indians who must live on those lands in order to receive their full “share” of government benefits.

When government owns all the land, we will individually own nothing. We lose control of everything.

Soviet-style socialist republic, anyone?

Give it some thought before succumbing to the “tree hugger feel good” virus.

coldwarrior on April 4, 2011 at 2:28 PM

If Barry wants more people to get out and utilize the current National Parks and Forests, maybe he should be working on strategies that would reduce the cost of a family doing just that, like less expensive gas! My family and I love to camp, but with the cost of gas this summer almost surely going above $4.00 a gallon, getting there will be tough to manage. And, turning control of more land over to the federal government does not strike me as such a great idea, given the poor performance they currently exhibit as custodians of OUR LAND!

djtnt on April 4, 2011 at 2:28 PM

It’s actually more basic than that.

And how commonly that is true. Too often, I think, we get stuck arguing about practicalities when we need to articulate principles. So, we fought Obamacare because we believed it would actually increase costs and add to the deficit – and both those facts are important. But it’s more basic than that – what about the threat to liberty? Let’s talk about that. And so we act on many issues.

David Shane on April 4, 2011 at 2:28 PM

spend spend spend!!

smart power.

stevezilla on April 4, 2011 at 2:30 PM

I thought bho usually took the land with his little gold EO pen! This is a back door way to see to it the nasty oil companies don’t have land to drill, baby, drill! Gads, I detest this man!
L

letget on April 4, 2011 at 2:31 PM

We should be selling some of that land, especially all of it that the TVA owns around all the man made lakes in Kentucky and Tennessee.

Knucklehead on April 4, 2011 at 2:32 PM

Obama is not hoping this will come true. This is clearly pandering to his left base for his re-election campaign.

Everything is in his power, all and everything a political expediency. Nothing more.

Sir Napsalot on April 4, 2011 at 2:33 PM

Good! It will be important to have all this paperwork in order when the Chinese commies roll in… Red Dawn!

yubley on April 4, 2011 at 2:34 PM

Next, I expect to hear Obama call for the demutualization of the National Debt.

J_Crater on April 4, 2011 at 2:34 PM

The Corporation of the United States Federal Government, Inc. continues to bloat bigger and bigger all the time.

ted c on April 4, 2011 at 2:36 PM

This land is our land, this land is our land, from California, to the New York island. We don’t care, whatchu wanna build, this land was made for Michelle and meeeeee…..

ted c on April 4, 2011 at 2:37 PM

Sorry Ed, I can’t march with you on this one. $900 million is a drop in the bucket, for starters. Secondly, some of these funds would be available to the Civil War Preservation Trust (but only on a matching dollar for dollar basis, i.e. the CWPT raises $100 grand in private donations, and they get matching funds of $100 grand) so that it could buy endangered Civil War battlefield sites (usually small pieces of property on the battlefield) which are then held in trust in perpetuity or donated to the NPS.

CWPT just closed on a deal to buy a big piece of land – 95 acres, in the heart of the Gettysburg battlefield.

Now if we’re talking about cutting back entitlement spending, I’m with you on that one.

Fritz

Old Fritz on April 4, 2011 at 2:37 PM

Going to a national or state park is no fun anymore.The admission price goes up every year and the list of rules is a mile long.What is the use of camping if you can’t have a campfire?

docflash on April 4, 2011 at 2:38 PM

too many “can go days without stepping on a single blade of grass.”

I know what he means. We call it “winter” up here in the high desert. We still have 3 feet of snow.

karl9000 on April 4, 2011 at 2:40 PM

It’s hard to imagine an idea that shows Obama less in touch with the concerns of Americans than a land-grab spending spree.

You fail to recognize the huge windfall we’ll receive when we sell Gitmo to the Cubans!!!!

It’s all in his grand plan!

And why are his kids using Skype?

ButterflyDragon on April 4, 2011 at 2:40 PM

So video games and eating at McDonald’s 7 days a week aren’t the causes of childhood obesity. The real culprit is not enough land owned by the govt.

Who knew??

angryed on April 4, 2011 at 2:40 PM

“We need less land under federal control, not more, and we need more exploration and recovery of our natural resources — especially on energy — rather than less.”

Speaking of campaigns…

… that quote right there would make one heck of an ad against Obowma.

Just sayin’…

Seven Percent Solution on April 4, 2011 at 2:41 PM

Sorry Ed, I can’t march with you on this one. $900 million is a drop in the bucket,
Old Fritz on April 4, 2011 at 2:37 PM

UGH. This ladies and gents is the problem. This attitude of oh, it’s ONLY $900M. Sure, why not. After all the money tree where we get our $100M bills will make up for it.

angryed on April 4, 2011 at 2:42 PM

saying that too many “can go days without stepping on a single blade of grass.”

Brought to you by the same people who hate the suburbs and exburbs. These are the same people who want to herd everyone into their government-approved apartments and onto their government-approved mass transit as they travel to and from their government jobs.

Oh, I see. They only hate privately owned grass. As long as they can control your movements, they want you to step on grass sometimes.

CJ on April 4, 2011 at 2:43 PM

Obowma just wants secure the Drug Cartel vote…

Seven Percent Solution on April 4, 2011 at 2:44 PM

I agree with Badger. The goal is not to open the lands but restrict them. We are already not allowed to dredge for gold in Cali anymore and the places that the BLM allows prospecting are in areas where there is no gold to find. The rules and restrictions on this use of our lands continue to be strangled by over-reaching government officials and feel good ninnies. The USFS and Nat Forests are closing huge sections of the wilderness because they can’t maintain them. They are also not allowing small miners to access and maintain their roads which is in direct conflict with the claim permits that call for you to perform the maintenance. It is maddening. They have also closed off road use areas to the point that a small fraction is legally accesible of what was open just a few years ago.

KZnextzone on April 4, 2011 at 2:45 PM

Brought to you by the same people who hate the suburbs and exburbs. These are the same people who want to herd everyone into their government-approved apartments and onto their government-approved mass transit as they travel to and from their government jobs.

Oh, I see. They only hate privately owned grass. As long as they can control your movements, they want you to step on grass sometimes.

CJ on April 4, 2011 at 2:43 PM

And the same people who get cities to impose watering bans so you can’t water your grass more than once a week or face serious fines. Or the same people who in some cities go a step further and ban lawns altogether for new houses in favor of rocks and pavement.

angryed on April 4, 2011 at 2:45 PM

It’s hard to imagine an idea that shows Obama less in touch with the concerns of Americans than a land-grab spending spree.

Ed, It’s called converting our “soon to be worthless” dollars into federally owned assets. Hyperinflation is just around the corner, along with the wheelbarrows we’ll need just to buy of loaf of bread.

Rovin on April 4, 2011 at 2:46 PM

Soviet-style socialist republic, anyone?

Give it some thought before succumbing to the “tree hugger feel good” virus.

coldwarrior on April 4, 2011 at 2:28 PM

Collectives, indeed!

Schadenfreude on April 4, 2011 at 2:47 PM

They hate humans.

Most of that land is not accessible for camping, etc. They want it to revert back to primitive states–that’s one reason we get the massive forest fires.

PattyJ on April 4, 2011 at 2:49 PM

Let me guess. Barry is going to buy up land in Detroit and New Orleans. Got the Black farmers their reparation money, now for the home owners in those wonderful ‘worker paradise’ cities.

GarandFan on April 4, 2011 at 2:50 PM

Stop this madness.

BuckeyeSam on April 4, 2011 at 2:53 PM

900 million is a billion with a ten percent discount. Huge amount of money in either quantity. Add up typical gummint cost over-runs and it’ll be well over a billion, easy.

That ten percent alone would go a long way towards buying Rice-a-Roni for the multitudes whose jobs Zero has killed from overspending and other disastrous economic and other policy decisions. Yet the real question boils down to whether we have the money to spend and we don’t. Zero shattered the piggy bank back in 2009 yet he’s still trying to spend like a welfare queen certain that no matter what happens another check will always arrive each month. Zero is the angry teen with the quart of whiskey, car keys with a “jones” to get more attention.

viking01 on April 4, 2011 at 2:55 PM

Just imagine the worst neighborhood association and their restrictive rules, then imagine Obama and his cohorts writing those rules.

fourdeucer on April 4, 2011 at 2:57 PM

And just how much of this land just happens to be sitting on oil, gas, mineral, precious metal, etc, reserves?

CurtZHP on April 4, 2011 at 2:24 PM

Exactly. ObaMao is attempting to close off these lands to exploration and resource development.

onlineanalyst on April 4, 2011 at 2:57 PM

I’m all for keeping more land out of the hands of strip miners and frackers, but if he wants to expand buying he ought to just cut a billion from the defense budget, and move that money to interior.

There are ways to be both environmentally conscious and fiscally sane – it just involves proper budgeting. In this case, all they have to do is find savings somewhere else, and defense is the perfect place.

ernesto on April 4, 2011 at 2:58 PM

Collectives, indeed!

Schadenfreude on April 4, 2011 at 2:47 PM

We don’t call them that here. The American version is a sharecropper with 40 acres and a mule. Does wonders for agricultural volume efficiences. Just as with the fat cat bankers making more money than they should, 200 bushels of corn/acre is way more than a farmer needs. It’s unfair!

a capella on April 4, 2011 at 3:05 PM

And just how much of this land just happens to be sitting on oil, gas, mineral, precious metal, etc, reserves?

CurtZHP on April 4, 2011 at 2:24 PM

That’s what it’s all about, of course. Cramming his socialist agenda down our throats.

petefrt on April 4, 2011 at 3:06 PM

If Barry wants to buy land there must be oil or natural gas under it.

When do states start ignoring the Fed and use their own land? Some states are only have juristiction over about 12% of their land because the Fed has stolen so much of it!

vapig on April 4, 2011 at 3:06 PM

If Barry wants to buy land there must be oil or natural gas under it.
vapig on April 4, 2011 at 3:06 PM

What am I saying? The Fed doesn’t BUY land – they steal it!

vapig on April 4, 2011 at 3:07 PM

I’m all for keeping more land out of the hands of strip miners and frackers, but if he wants to expand buying he ought to just cut a billion from the defense welfare budget, and move that money to interior.

There are ways to be both environmentally conscious and fiscally sane – it just involves proper budgeting. In this case, all they have to do is find savings somewhere else, and defense welfare is the perfect place.

ernesto on April 4, 2011 at 2:58 PM

FIFY

Aviator on April 4, 2011 at 3:09 PM

I’m all for keeping more land out of the hands of strip miners and frackers, but if he wants to expand buying he ought to just cut a billion from the defense budget, and move that money to interior.
ernesto on April 4, 2011 at 2:58 PM

Have you any experience with how the feds manage/designate wetlands?

a capella on April 4, 2011 at 3:10 PM

Have you any experience with how the feds manage/designate wetlands?

a capella on April 4, 2011 at 3:10 PM

Ernie doesn’t have much experience with anything.

Aviator on April 4, 2011 at 3:12 PM

Cloward-Piven (sigh)

shick on April 4, 2011 at 3:13 PM

I’m all for keeping more land out of the hands of strip miners and frackers, but if he wants to expand buying he ought to just cut a billion from the defense budget, and move that money to interior.

There are ways to be both environmentally conscious and fiscally sane – it just involves proper budgeting. In this case, all they have to do is find savings somewhere else, and defense is the perfect place.

ernesto on April 4, 2011 at 2:58 PM

Trust me on this one. There are plenty of laws on the books and penalties for noncompliance in re to strip mining and fracking. Restoration of the land is part of the law.

onlineanalyst on April 4, 2011 at 3:17 PM

Another determent to the Fed gov. owning even more land is that the more land the fed takes over the less local property tax revenue, which equals more dependence on the feds.

oldernwiser on April 4, 2011 at 3:20 PM

Have you any experience with how the feds manage/designate wetlands?

a capella on April 4, 2011 at 3:10 PM

Hell, the feds could let the land overgrow and just sit there. It would be preferable to tearing it all up chasing polluting energy sources.

FIFY

Aviator on April 4, 2011 at 3:09 PM

I’d disagree. I’d argue that welfare money is more often put to a better use than defense spending. Food stamps help families stave off hunger, medicaid helps the poor attain proper healthcare, medicare allows elderly americans to stave off destitution. Defense, by and large, is spent lobbing missiles in the Libyan, Iraqi, and Afghani wastelands, along with buying stealth fighters for imaginary combat scenarios with countries that have much less aggressive tendencies than we do.

Leave the poor alone, and take the money from our stealth fighter budget. How much would we have to cut to save a billion bucks, a few bombers?

ernesto on April 4, 2011 at 3:21 PM

http://strangemaps.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/map-owns_the_west.jpg

Does the gov’t own enough already?

Abby Adams on April 4, 2011 at 2:20 PM

They own 1.9% of Texas. That’s 1.9% too much.

mizflame98 on April 4, 2011 at 3:22 PM

Trust me on this one. There are plenty of laws on the books and penalties for noncompliance in re to strip mining and fracking. Restoration of the land is part of the law.

onlineanalyst on April 4, 2011 at 3:17 PM

Not good enough. a) those laws are largely written by lobbyists and b) they are flouted anyway. Just take the land off the table, and leave polluters to figure out some other way to make obscene amounts of money.

ernesto on April 4, 2011 at 3:22 PM

ernesto on April 4, 2011 at 3:21 PM

Of course you disagree. You seem to like the idea of a dependent class. Much better to spend money on creating and maintaing economic slaves than to actually spend money on one of the few legitimate functions of the federal government.

Aviator on April 4, 2011 at 3:25 PM

Not good enough. a) those laws are largely written by lobbyists and b) they are flouted anyway. Just take the land off the table, and leave polluters to figure out some other way to make obscene amounts of money.

ernesto on April 4, 2011 at 3:22 PM

Yes and no. They are written by lobbyists but not those you improperly suggest. It’s the environmentalist lobbyists that write the books and end up with the obscene amounts of money.

shick on April 4, 2011 at 3:25 PM

Yep, the environmentalists are against ‘strip-mining’, they’d rather have coal miners burrow into the Earth doing one of the most dangerous jobs there is. All so no human eyes have to fall on a disruption in the surface of Mother Gaia for a year or two over a few acres. Just loony.

slickwillie2001 on April 4, 2011 at 3:26 PM

Of course you disagree. You seem to like the idea of a dependent class. Much better to spend money on creating and maintaing economic slaves than to actually spend money on one of the few legitimate functions of the federal government.

Aviator on April 4, 2011 at 3:25 PM

For all your talk of dependent classes, how many moms on food stamps do you know? Do you think they’d be better off without food stamps to feed their kids?

Anyway, I couldn’t care less whether or not defense is within the legitimate federal prerogative: it’s still wasted money, and to save a billion dollars to conserve untouched land we’d have to get rid of just a few bombers. It’s pretty ridiculous to act as if Lockheed and Boeing are more deserving of our billions than the earth and/or poor moms looking to feed their kids.

ernesto on April 4, 2011 at 3:32 PM

slickwillie2001 on April 4, 2011 at 3:26 PM

I’d rather we just stop mining coal; burning it is pure mayhem on the lungs of anyone in the area.

ernesto on April 4, 2011 at 3:33 PM

Obama wants to buy more land because that’s where the money trees are.

misterpeasea on April 4, 2011 at 3:34 PM

I’d rather we just stop mining coal; burning it is pure mayhem on the lungs of anyone in the area.

ernesto on April 4, 2011 at 3:33 PM

Why do you hate poor people so much, would be the logical follow-up question.

misterpeasea on April 4, 2011 at 3:35 PM

When do states start ignoring the Fed and use their own land? Some states are only have juristiction over about 12% of their land because the Fed has stolen so much of it!

vapig on April 4, 2011 at 3:06 PM

Sumbuddy enlighten me, please ?
I’m simply ignorant about how this works….
Should the states be doing their best to ‘own’ as much of their own land as possible, to prevent the Feds taking it ?? ….
Or, do they have ZERO standing against the Fed land-grabs ???
I despise this admin …. Aaaaaaaargggggh.

pambi on April 4, 2011 at 3:37 PM

Conservation! Hooray! 4 more years!

any random 52%er

james23 on April 4, 2011 at 3:38 PM

Obama wants to double conservation spending, buy more federal land down on stupid

FIFY

Or is it:
Triple (3)
Quadruple (4)
Quintuple or Pentuple (5)
Sextuple or Hextuple (6)
Septuple (7)
Octuple (8)
Nonuple (9)
Decuple (10)
Hendecuple or Undecuple (11)
Duodecuple (12)
Centuple (100)

There is also one 0-tuple, an empty sequence.

And that’s what we have; the 0-tuple presidency.

pain train on April 4, 2011 at 3:40 PM

Meanwhile he’s cutting funding to special forces, but hey he’s not letting them win anyway, so what the heck, right?

He’s a jackass.

dogsoldier on April 4, 2011 at 3:43 PM

And he wants to make it easier for Americans to use parks and public lands, saying that too many “can go days without stepping on a single blade of grass.”

You know what would make it easier for Americans down here in the SW to use our public parks? If our $%&*ing excuse for a federal government would do its damn job and secure our southern border so that vicious Mexican drug gangs stop using our public parks as convenient places from which to run their criminal organizations.

Bur we can’t have our federal government doing one of its actual Constitutionally-prescribed duties, now can we? That would be raaaaacist or something (and it might cost Barry some of his precious illegal alien votes).

AZCoyote on April 4, 2011 at 3:45 PM

And let’s not forget that this is COMPLETELY UN-CONSTITUTIONAL! The only Constitutional uses for land are mentioned in…

Article I Section 8 Clause 7: To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

Article I Section 8 Clause 17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;

Unless they plan on leveling all that parkland to build to build Federal buildings…

dominigan on April 4, 2011 at 3:45 PM

This sounds like a much better time to start selling off federal land to pay down the debt.

Count to 10 on April 4, 2011 at 3:46 PM

For all your talk of dependent classes, how many moms on food stamps do you know? Do you think they’d be better off without food stamps to feed their kids?

How many do you know? I’ve met more than a few in my life. I think they would be better off with opportunity rather than a hand out. Why do you want them to be dependent?

Throwing money to a group of people to keep them dependent is not only wasted money, but morally repugnant as well.

Aviator on April 4, 2011 at 3:46 PM

dominigan on April 4, 2011 at 3:45 PM

I suppose not using the land for anything doesn’t necessary run afoul of that clause.

ernesto on April 4, 2011 at 3:47 PM

Anyway, I couldn’t care less whether or not defense is within the legitimate federal prerogative: it’s still wasted money, and to save a billion dollars to conserve untouched land we’d have to get rid of just a few bombers. It’s pretty ridiculous to act as if Lockheed and Boeing are more deserving of our billions than the earth and/or poor moms looking to feed their kids.

ernesto on April 4, 2011 at 3:32 PM

Wow, earnie. You really have gone to drinking the KGB koolade, haven’t you.

Count to 10 on April 4, 2011 at 3:49 PM

How many do you know? I’ve met more than a few in my life. I think they would be better off with opportunity rather than a hand out.

Aviator on April 4, 2011 at 3:46 PM

The fallacy in your assumption is that these are not mutually exclusive scenarios. One can do what they can to provide opportunity while still providing a means to stave off hunger. Put another way, food stamps do not remove opportunity.

ernesto on April 4, 2011 at 3:49 PM

Hey, is that Ed in the front pic playing golf with Erkel ??

Jerome Horwitz on April 4, 2011 at 3:50 PM

I’d rather we just stop mining coal; burning it is pure mayhem on the lungs of anyone in the area.

ernesto on April 4, 2011 at 3:33 PM

But we don’t need to burn it to produce energy and obtain complete energy independence…

Let’s talk about an actual Energy Policy (EXCELLENT!)

Arlington scientists find a way to make cheap gas from coal ($30/barrel!)

dominigan on April 4, 2011 at 3:50 PM

Count to 10 on April 4, 2011 at 3:49 PM

How many bombers would it take to save a billion dollars? I’ll help you: procuring a single B-2 bomber costs a billion dollars. If given the choice between one B-2 and acres and acres of federally protected land, I choose the latter. That you choose the former is regrettable.

ernesto on April 4, 2011 at 3:51 PM

I’d rather we just stop mining coal; burning it is pure mayhem on the lungs of anyone in the area.

ernesto on April 4, 2011 at 3:33 PM

Like unicorn farts are any healthier.

Ward Cleaver on April 4, 2011 at 3:51 PM

I suppose not using the land for anything doesn’t necessary run afoul of that clause.

ernesto on April 4, 2011 at 3:47 PM

Accept they’re not allowed to purchase it except for those explicit reasons… to build needful Federal BUILDINGS.

dominigan on April 4, 2011 at 3:52 PM

The fallacy in your assumption is that these are not mutually exclusive scenarios. One can do what they can to provide opportunity while still providing a means to stave off hunger. Put another way, food stamps do not remove opportunity.

ernesto on April 4, 2011 at 3:49 PM

Effectively, every dollar worth of resources the government dedicates to food stamps is a dollar of resources that don’t go to paying someone for actually producing something. So it does rob them of opportunity, though in a somewhat dispersed sense.

Count to 10 on April 4, 2011 at 3:53 PM

ernesto on April 4, 2011 at 3:49 PM

The fallacy is in your assumption.
I have to go contribute to the economy right now. Why don’t you go check the kitchen, maybe Mom bought you a fresh bag of Doritos.

Aviator on April 4, 2011 at 3:53 PM

And he wants to make it easier for Americans to use parks and public lands, saying that too many “can go days without stepping on a single blade of grass.”

That’s because they’re living in the depressing urban core. What us crazy suburbanites have figured out is that you can have your own land and not pay too much for it. I spent three hours “stepping on grass” with my son and ours dogs in our fenced in back yard yesterday.

strictnein on April 4, 2011 at 3:54 PM

How many bombers would it take to save a billion dollars? I’ll help you: procuring a single B-2 bomber costs a billion dollars. If given the choice between one B-2 and acres and acres of federally protected land, I choose the latter. That you choose the former is regrettable.

ernesto on April 4, 2011 at 3:51 PM

Your choice of turning perfectly usable land into useless wastes rather than strengthen our hand against tyrants the world over is regrettable.

Count to 10 on April 4, 2011 at 3:54 PM

The fallacy is in your assumption.
I have to go contribute to the economy right now. Why don’t you go check the kitchen, maybe Mom bought you a fresh bag of Doritos Cheetos.

Aviator on April 4, 2011 at 3:53 PM

FIFY.

Ward Cleaver on April 4, 2011 at 3:55 PM

For all your talk of dependent classes, how many moms on food stamps do you know? Do you think they’d be better off without food stamps to feed their kids?

ernesto on April 4, 2011 at 3:32 PM

When we were just starting out, we went through some very difficult times and we ended up on WIC and food stamps. I’m not proud of that time, and I was very glad once I could provide enough for my family that we didn’t need them.

But that being said… we were one of the few families that felt that way. The dependent attitude was strongly on display downtown in the Social Services building.

And we ate better on food stamps than we ever did off. You could easily trim 20% from the amount to everyone and not have people “starving in the streets”.

The fallacy in your assumption is that these are not mutually exclusive scenarios. One can do what they can to provide opportunity while still providing a means to stave off hunger. Put another way, food stamps do not remove opportunity.

ernesto on April 4, 2011 at 3:49 PM

No, they don’t remove the opportunity to get off them. They remove the willpower to pursue that opportunity. I know… I saw it first hand.

dominigan on April 4, 2011 at 3:58 PM

I’m all for keeping more land out of the hands of strip miners and frackers, but if he wants to expand buying he ought to just cut a billion from the defense budget, and move that money to interior.

ernesto on April 4, 2011 at 2:58 PM

So entities who operate strip mines are all bad & continually rape the countryside without any enviro standards at all?
Fracking also degrades the enviro to the point that no one has safe drinking water & people with allergies are popping up everywhere?
WTH world do you live in?
Have you ever seen any of these enterprises in action you speak so badly about?
I have.
You can stip mine responsibly.
You can frak responsibly.
There is nothing wrong with using land’s resources.
It’s all in the way you go about it.
As a rancher, I know how to manage my land effictively.
The govt offices do not.
Giving $$ & resources to the govt to ‘manage’ anything is a joke.
Having dealt with govt agencies like USDA,EPA,BLM,USFS,Fish & Wildlife, etc., I know that most of the people employed by these agencies are the following:
1.Recent green behind the ears college graduates who never lived a day on the land in their lives
2. Govt pencil pushers who never worked a day in their lives.
3. These people make up an increasingly small minority: people who went to college who grew up on a farm or ranch & know what it’s like to manage resources.
Category #3 are the only people that will accomplish anything.
And the scuttlebutt I hear down the grapevine in these govt organizations is that people in categories #3 are ostrasized.
If you grew up on a farm or ranch, for God’s sake don’t tell them you did bcs you won’t get hired for that cushy govt position.
I live next to land that used to be in CRP. The govt paid the landowner not to farm highly erodable land. As a result, after ~3yrs, there was nothing left in there to eat for any critter around.
Do you know where they came to eat?
MY LAND! Bcs I USED it effectively.
I have seen the direct results of govt managed land.
It is ugly.
Yellowstone national park, for instance, is an overgrazed dump. But most people don’t understand that.
So they ignorantly think it’s great.

Badger40 on April 4, 2011 at 4:00 PM

For all your talk of dependent classes, how many moms on food stamps do you know? Do you think they’d be better off without food stamps to feed their kids?

ernesto on April 4, 2011 at 3:32 PM

I was a divorced mom on foodstamps once for 3 months in WA state, & then another 3 months in another state.
They gave me so much food I could not even spend it all.
I find now that I could really use food stamps, but alas, i am just a poor working stiff who makes too much $$ & has too much in resources.
Life would be a lot easier for me if I sat on my a$$ & collected welfare & food stamps.
I see it all around me here in our tiny rural towns.

Badger40 on April 4, 2011 at 4:02 PM

I’m all for keeping more land out of the hands of strip miners and frackers
ernesto on April 4, 2011 at 2:58 PM

Liberals are amazing. Yea let’s ban mining, and logging, and drilling for oil and natural gas exploration.

Things copper for pipes and wood for furniture and fuel to heat homes will just be given to us by the Obama unicorns instead.

angryed on April 4, 2011 at 4:02 PM

I’d rather we just stop mining coal; burning it is pure mayhem on the lungs of anyone in the area.

ernesto on April 4, 2011 at 3:33 PM

If you were really worried about coal pollution, you’d get off of the damned computer.
Bcs that’s where a lot of the electricity is coming from for your electronic devices.

Badger40 on April 4, 2011 at 4:04 PM

For all your talk of dependent classes, how many moms on food stamps do you know? Do you think they’d be better off without food stamps to feed their kids?

ernesto on April 4, 2011 at 3:32 PM

About a month ago I saw a woman use her food stamps card. It’s an ATM type card but it has distinctive lettering that you can tell what it is. Turned out she parked next to me in the parking lot. And what did this poor single mom using food stamps drive? An almost new Jeep Commander Limited. MSRP $44K.

But you’re right Ernie, nobody abuses the system. All welfare recipients are just down on their luck people eeking out survival.

angryed on April 4, 2011 at 4:05 PM

Things copper for pipes and wood for furniture and fuel to heat homes will just be given to us by the Obama unicorns instead.

angryed on April 4, 2011 at 4:02 PM

These people are people who have never been involved in the production of anything.
They just consume. And the job they have is not related in any base way to the making of something at the lowest level.
Like ‘organic’ foods.
What is big bunch of crapola that is.
You want the ‘organic’ lifestyle? Go live in Africa & die at the age of 30.
Bcs that’s what the organic lifestyle does for you.

Badger40 on April 4, 2011 at 4:06 PM

If you were really worried about coal pollution, you’d get off of the damned computer.
Bcs that’s where a lot of the electricity is coming from for your electronic devices.

Badger40 on April 4, 2011 at 4:04 PM

Shhh. You’re making too much sense. Ernie will have a seizure trying to figure it all out.

angryed on April 4, 2011 at 4:06 PM

I’m starting to think Ernie is a plant by Allahpundit. Nobody can be that cretinous. Can he?

angryed on April 4, 2011 at 4:09 PM

For all your talk of dependent classes, how many moms on food stamps do you know? Do you think they’d be better off without food stamps to feed their kids?

ernesto on April 4, 2011 at 3:32 PM

You’re damn right they would be better off without food stamps. Give a man to fish and you’ll feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you will feed him for a lifetime.

mizflame98 on April 4, 2011 at 4:13 PM

angryed on April 4, 2011 at 4:09 PM

Oh I come in contact with people like this all the time who find out I’m a rancher.
It is usually people who come from the city.
Now many city folks are very common sense.
But far too many are not.
Enviros know nothing about land use or practices.
Bcs the things they promote are often very harmful to the environment.
Human beings manage the land in such ways that it actually increases the survivability of all types of species.
I, for instance, grow grass.
I grow it better utilizing grazing rotation methods much better than nature does on its own.
As a consequence, more deer etc. enjoy my land & spend lots of time there.
I’m not just growing grassfor my cows to eat.
I’m growing it for the wildlife.
A-hole who don’t know their a$$ from a hole in the ground proceed to speak of that which they know nothing about & call it ‘Conservation’.
All it really is is a power grab.

Badger40 on April 4, 2011 at 4:13 PM

Do you think they’d be better off without food stamps to feed their kids?

ernesto on April 4, 2011 at 3:32 PM

Yes. Bcs then they’d go out & get a job, go cotnact their family for help, go to their local church for help, go to their local charity for help.
Trust me.
They’re far better off.
If I hadn’t have gone to the govt agency to get food stamps, I bet I could have gotten some help from those other agencies.
People need to go that route for help.
the govt is NOT your friend.

Badger40 on April 4, 2011 at 4:15 PM

I’d rather we just stop mining coal; burning it is pure mayhem on the lungs of anyone in the area.

ernesto on April 4, 2011 at 3:33 PM

I assume you live solely on wind & solar power.
To do anything less is hypocritical.
BTW-those machines that deliver that power: they’re made using COAL & PETROLEUM products.
Go figure!

Badger40 on April 4, 2011 at 4:16 PM

America would really be better off if none of the land was usable for anything, wouldn’t it? Let’s just move back to the other continents and leave America to the Natives.

How on earth is it wise policy to take land out of the realm of revenue generation, and set it off limits to development, dwelling, or other use? At the same time they’re proposing this, our National Parks are in a sorry state because Uncle Sam can’t budget his money wisely. You think there will be more or less forest fires as the Feds govern more land?

hawksruleva on April 4, 2011 at 4:16 PM

And he wants to make it easier for Americans to use parks and public lands, saying that too many “can go days without stepping on a single blade of grass.”

Ummm, how does buying land in rural areas get people in urban areas onto the land? If that’s his real goal, he could just give out bus tickets to people. His real goal is controlling land and resources, so that people in government have even more leverage with which to extract money from their cronies.

hawksruleva on April 4, 2011 at 4:18 PM

I’d rather we just stop mining coal; burning it is pure mayhem on the lungs of anyone in the area.

ernesto on April 4, 2011 at 3:33 PM

I’m sure electricity never helped anyone in a hospital…

hawksruleva on April 4, 2011 at 4:18 PM

Comment pages: 1 2