A recent article from Godfather Politics illustrated that the federal government was acquiring land at an accelerated pace.
The Federal Government owns millions of acres, most of it in western states and Alaska. Here’s the breakdown:
- Nevada : 84.5%
- Alaska: 69.1%
- Utah: 57.4%
- Oregon: 53.1%
- Idaho: 50.2%
- Arizona: 48.1%
- California: 45.3%
- Wyoming: 42.3%
- New Mexico: 41.8%
- Colorado: 36.6%
If this weren’t enough, plans have been in the making for even more land to be designated as federal land. Here’s part of a report from Sen. Jim DeMint, South Carolina Republican, who is chairman of the U.S. Senate Steering Committee. To my chagrin, I have not known about this:
A secret administration memo has surfaced revealing plans for the federal government to seize more than 10 million acres from Montana to New Mexico, halting job-creating activities like ranching, forestry, mining and energy development. Worse, this land grab would dry up tax revenue that’s essential for funding schools, firehouses and community centers.
President Obama could enact the plans in this memo with just the stroke of a pen, without any input from the communities affected by it.
Administration officials claim the document is merely the product of a brainstorming session, but anyone who reads this memo can see that it is a wish list for the environmentalist left. It discusses, in detail, what kinds of animal populations would benefit from limiting human activity in those areas.
The 21-page document, marked “Internal Draft-NOT FOR RELEASE,” names 14 different lands Mr. Obama could completely close for development by unilaterally designating them as “monuments” under the 1906 Antiquities Act.
This is a story that hasn’t gotten much attention. I suspect that it hasn’t been acted on because the president is in a tough election fight. If he gets re-elected, a real possibility, don’t be surprised if more of America comes under the control of the federal government.
To show you what we’re up against, DeMint sponsored an amendment to block Mr. Obama from declaring any of the 14 lands listed in the memo as “monuments.” The Senate, because it is a Democrat majority, rejected it by a vote of 58–38. This means that some Republicans voted with the Democrats.
Read more: Federal Land Grab in the Works | Godfather Politics http://godfatherpolitics.com/2399/federal-land-grab-in-the-works/#ixzz1fV1NauDd
December 2, 2011
The government’s justification for the land grab is that it “serves the public interest” to do so. Related to the tension between big government and individual liberty is the public interest versus private property conflict. Similar to the economic dynamic of taxation (government’s swallowing of financial resources hinders private capital formation and development), when government absorbs land—a finite commodity, the private sector access is either severely curtailed or totally eliminated. The land, its mineral rights and the local tax potential are removed from the gross economic activity of the locality and the nation. From an economic perspective….the fruit and bounty of the land ceases to exist. It may even generate a negative productivity in the sense that tax dollars may be necessary to maintain the property and provide security. So in most cases the property becomes a public obligation rather than a contributing component for the national prosperity.
In my view it is immoral for a government to own land beyond the absolute minimal amount needed for vital constitutionally-ordained functions. Even within those strict parameters, an overreaching government will be tempted to have too-large military bases, expansive and ornate buildings and post offices, and excessive space surrounding its venues. The mindless system called government always seeks to broaden its power through any means available, and title to real property is a method for limiting citizens’ power and increasing government’s. If one controls the means of production, one can direct the quantity, quality and value of the product. In essence, when government controls the land and the resources upon it and below it, the opportunities for private development are severely restricted.
Serfs work the land and keep a portion of the productive value. Slaves work the land and rely on the largesse and generosity of the master for sustenance. Neither position is consistent with a truly free republic. To allow government to create serfdom or to enslave the people is the antithesis of the Founders’ and Framers’ intent. One should review the constitutional debates for insight into how our early leaders viewed slavery and servitude as loathsome and undesirable. They considered private property as the anchor of personal liberty. They believed that individual freedom was contingent on the right to acquire and possess private property. That right…that critical element of liberty…is jeopardized when government with its vast array of resources and force competes with the citizens for ownership of property. Freedom is at risk when government employs force to require property-owning citizens to utilize their property in ways that are acceptable to the government. The titles may reflect individual ownership, but the control belongs to the State. In effect the citizens are serfs. Liberty is undermined and the Republic is in peril.
Puddles are NOT wetlands. Snail darters are not vital for the survival of the nation. Potential Pfizer offices in Connecticut do not justify the seizure of private homes for community development. Creating National Wilderness Monuments with the stroke of a pen and isolating millions of acres from private ownership is not in the public interest because the public interest includes liberty, potential, opportunity and prosperity for the citizens of the nation. Today is not 1889 but it seems that something like the Oklahoma Land Rush would be in order. A free people have property rights. A despotic government limits and denies those rights. A freedom movement will reclaim those rights.
Comment: cearlwriting@hotmail.com
Tuesday, 6-7:00pm, 1370 WSPD, Toledo www.wspd.com
No comments:
Post a Comment