Please, please, please Feds:Save Utah from Utah's shortsighted,
What’s good for the goose . . . . If Utah’s federal lands should be
ceded (they cannot be "returned") to state control, why not the federal
lands in Nevada (84.5%) and Alaska (69.1%), where federal lands are a much
greater percentage of total land than in Utah (57.5%). And why not the federal
lands in Oregon (53.1%), Idaho (50.2%), Arizona (48.1%), and California (45.3%),
where the percentage of federal lands is almost as great as Utah’s?Utah may be the generically “best managed state” in
someone’s opinion, but where is the evidence of Utah’s superiority
or relative competence, compared to the federal government, in the more relevant
category of public land management?And what do you mean by proposing
that Utah (and by implication, other western states), be put on “equal
footing with the original states”? The original states differ widely in
the percentage of land under federal ownership, from Connecticut (0.4%, the
least) to North Carolina (11.8%, the greatest among all states east of the Rocky
Mountain states).I prefer federal control of federal land, so that
all citizens of this “one nation, under God, indivisible” can
benefit equally from them.
If you want to be treated like a grown up, you've got to act like one. And
the first thing a grown up does is pay her/his own bills. Utah still receives
about $1.12 for every federal dollar it pays in taxes. Utah has never been self
sustaining. On the other hand, liberal states, like CA, have been paying for
you the entire time. We only receive about .87 cents per dollar. Then, once you actually begin to pay your own way, stop complaining about a
federal government which has been bailing you out constantly for your entire
existence; a grown up would acknowledge the help she/he has received, not mock
If it is so beneficial to have 60% or so of Utah under federal ownership, then
it follows that all of the states would benefit from similar Federal ownership.
Lets start with New York and see how that flies.
I am a child of God.I am a man, husband to my wife and father to my
children.I am an American. Because of the benefits and status
accorded to my citizenship. I am a Utahn. Only because I live here.
I live here because of the natural environment. Not because of any benefits
that might accrue from the state and local governments. If it were
possible, I would drop my Utah citizenship in favor of just being an American.
When it comes to protecting and managing Utah's world-class landscapes, I
thank God that the Feds are in charge. May it always be so.
To "Stalwart Sentinel" but if the state controlled the lands, we
wouldn't need that extra 12 cents because we would be able to keep more of
the royalties from the land use in Utah.Think of it like the Federal
is renting farm land from Utah. We get back more than we spend because they
control so much of the farm land. If we were to farm that ourselves, we
wouldn't need extra help.To "Demo Dave" unfortunately
the Federal Government does a poor job of handling wild areas. Thanks to
federal policies, Federal forsest land throughout the US have become dry old
growth forests lacking the structure to prevent small forest fires from getting
Land grab, indeed. All the GOP can talk about is the trillions of dollars to be
pulled out of mining, drilling, stripping, laying pipe, etc. They won't be
satisfied until the whole state looks like Beck Street.
Utahns make up 0.904% of the total U.S. population.Perhaps
you'd feel better if Utahns were only allowed 0.904% of the U.S. land
then?[Making the State about the size of Indiana or South Carolina.]Look what good stewards of the Land our State has already done with the
land they DO control -- Uranium mining in Canyon lands, strip mining
of Kennecott, and the ever progressive dumping of spent foreign nuclear
waste of Energy Solutions.Heaven help us if they ever get ahold of
current the Federal lands being protected from ourselves! Oil shale
mining would make the Moon or Venus more hospitable and livable.
The Feds manage it much better than this state ever will.The State of Utah
never owned the land to begin with. Native Americans have a much stronger claim
to the land than Utah does. Just last summer the Feds spent more than $50
Million on fire fighting in Utah. Does anyone really believe the state is going
to come up with that kind of money every summer?People incorrectly say
wilderness is locked up but if you want to see land that is truly locked up, let
the greedy Utah politicians take control, only to be sold to the highest bidder.
No, Red. Instead of gaining twelve cents on the dollar, Utah would be a heckuva
mess trying to pay to properly manage all that land that is basically worthless.
Unless you're satisfied to see it all destroyed.But judging
from your past comments, I'm afraid that would be perfectly okay with you.
To "one old man" actually it is quite reasonable to assume that Utah
could take over control of the lands that they want back. According to the
legislature, the land they want back does not include national parks and some
wilderness areas. That means what is left are undeveloped land that has
resources that actually produce royalties of some sort.If Utah only
takes back land that makes money, why is it so unreasonable to expect that Utah
would be able to profit from the land?
Redshirt1701 "If Utah only takes back land that makes money, why is it so
unreasonable to expect that Utah would be able to profit from the land?"...and since those legislators that you trust are a bunch of
"Development Vultures" all land could be profitable at least once even
for the pennies on the dollar that they will sell it for.The land
belongs to ALL Americans. Temporarily elected self serving one party
Utonian's are not interested in what's best for Utah or the nation,
just right here right now, them and their bank accounts.
To "Happy Valley Heretic" do you even have any idea of which lands they
are wanting to control?You realize that if they took control of much
of the land in central and south eastern Utah that there is no market to develop
that land for anything besides grazing rights and mineral rights. Nothing
different than is already going on with those lands.Also, think
about what it could mean for Utah. If we can get more mineral extraction or
grazing on Utah lands, that means Utah can collect more royalties. Those
royalties go to pay for schools and roads. Do you not want our kids to be
better educated or have decent roads to drive on?
Really the "School Trust Lands" they've sold off half of, is gunna
run out and they'll need more to sell.I understand what your
saying, I just don't believe many in the legislature are going to be
pragmatic about it."Wait a minute... there might be legal
precedent. Of course! Land-snatching!Ah, Haley vs. United States. Haley:
7, United States: nothing. You see, it can be done!"
Redshirt - The statement that Utah takes more in federal funding than it pays in
federal taxes is not based off some abnormality or outlier year, that is the
norm. So, Utah's habit is to spend more of American tax payers' money
than it produces. That is what you have been doing with my money for years and
years based on your utilization of the resources you currently have. How would
giving you a larger piece of the pie (more state-controlled lands) resolve that?
Based on your history, giving you a larger piece of the pie just means
we'll have to spend even more money to bail you out every year. Why should
we give you more control when you have a history of fiscal mismanagement and an
inability to pay for all your spending habits? Currently, if you
had more control over more lands in Utah, it'd just be a larger tab
you'd rack up that states like CA. Also, I can't imagine
where Utah would be without the "training wheels" of the LDS Church ie
To "Stalwart Sentinel" you underestimate Utah. They have historically
proven that they keep the state budget close to the tax revenues that it
recieves. Some years they run surplusses and some years they dip into the rainy
day fun.The state does not have bad spending habbits. They have
decent habbits (they could crack down on some welfare waste and fraud) and have
shown that they are responsible with tax payer money.What historical
proof do you have that Utah would become a massive debtor state like California?
If anything Utah's history shows that it would not run the massive
deficits that California does.
Redshirt - I don't believe I underestimate Utah. I actually love Utah -
the people and the land. But, my perspective is that Utah remains such a
beautiful place in spite of Utah's local political inclinations, not
because of them. Further, my perspective is that Utah lopsidedly benefits from
two main benefactors: the US federal govt and the LDS Church. As a California
Church member who lives in a state that pays more in federal taxes than it
receives, I'm just wondering how much more of my taxes and tithing you need
before you can get your house in order?My historical proof is
twofold: tax history and basic mathematics: Tax fact: Since 1981,
Utah has received a net surplus of 22.3 billion that it did not pay for while CA
was shortchanged 489 billion. Basic mathematics: (UT current debt -
federal subsidy) means -22.8 - 22.3 = true debt is roughly 44.1 billion. Basic mathematics: (CA current debt + federal credit) means -407 + 489 =
82 billion dollar surplus. Please, stop pretending to pull your own
weight and start to recognize the immense sacrifice liberal states make to put
dinner on your plate every night.
To "Stalwart Sentinel" but you do underestimate Utah. You assume that
if Utah had less money coming in from taxes that they will continue to spend at
current levels. The fact is that historically the Utah legislature has cut back
when tax revenues have dropped.The liberal states do no put dinner
on my plate every night. My garden and businesses located throughout the supply
food. The liberal states have little to do with it ouside of making it cost
more because of high taxes and over-regulation.
RedShirt - Incorrect, there is no assumption on my end. The numbers I provided
are demonstrably accurate. So, what we know, without question, is that UT has
been more than willing to spend other people's money for decades but then
represents itself as being self-sustaining and fiscally responsible. If the
Utah legislature had any integrity, they would not have spent the 22.3 billion
they did not earn over the past 30 years. It is as simple as that. Further, as
noted above, some of the largest economic boons in Utah have come through the
Church's investments. Tithing, gathered from me and countless other
non-Utah members, has been spent to boost Utah's private sector. Again,
Utah did not earn these investments, we did. Yet, you reap the benefits of our
labors. I find it to be the peak of arrogance and ingratitude when
someone doesn't recognize the assistance they have received.
Unfortunately, I feel you have only confirmed my suspicions about many Utahns
when it comes to acknowledging who has financed the infrastructure to make your
"garden and business" possible. What's worse, you mock the people
who make personal sacrifices to ensure your state stays afloat.
To "Stalwart Sentinel" you still don't get the point that I have
made.You say that you don't underestimate Utah, yet you claim
that they cannot maintain a budget.The amount of money coming in
from the Federal Government is irrelevant. Utah, year after year, has
consistantly kept a budget that results in a small surplus or if a deficit
occurs it has a rainy day fund to cover its costs. Do you deny that?Who is making the personal sacrifices to ensure Utah remains up? Do people in
Utah pay a different rate than those in California? There is no more sacrifice
in California than Utah in terms of federal taxes.