Republicans Vote to Sell Off National Parks

[rougueone]

Full Story

Just when I think I'm finished being surprised or truly disgusted with
the Republicans in Congress...

Pennsylvania has the following for sale:
The States entire turnpike system.
All of it's liqor stores as the State controls liquor sales. 600 stores State wide.

Many cities are selling their water systems.
The entire State parks and gamelands are for sale.

 

[TracerBullet]

If this is true, it's a race to the bottom for ethics in the republican party.

Every time it seems the Republican's can't sink any lower they prove us wrong.

 

[kmoney]

Full Story

Just when I think I'm finished being surprised or truly disgusted with the Republicans in Congress...

from the opening quote...

"Last month, nearly every Republican in the US Senate voted on a budget amendment allowing states to seize public lands, which means every National Park in the country would be subject to the whims of state lawmakers who could authorize the selling of these lands to private industries for exploitation."

Maybe this is a dumb question but aren't the National Parks subject to the whims of federal lawmakers now? If so, is that worse than state lawmakers?

 

[Delmar]

from the opening quote...

"Last month, nearly every Republican in the US Senate voted on a budget amendment allowing states to seize public lands, which means every National Park in the country would be subject to the whims of state lawmakers who could authorize the selling of these lands to private industries for exploitation."

Maybe this is a dumb question but aren't the National Parks subject to the whims of federal lawmakers now? If so, is that worse than state lawmakers?

Great question.

 

[Nimrod]

Full Story

Just when I think I'm finished being surprised or truly disgusted with the Republicans in Congress...

Sell it off to the private sector. I am all for Federal government to sell all the land

 

[The Barbarian]

Maybe this is a dumb question but aren't the National Parks subject to the whims of federal lawmakers now? If so, is that worse than state lawmakers?

What's frustrating for them, is that they can't give away federal lands, because the president would veto any giveaway. So, they'd like to find a way to put our property in the hands of state governments, who would be more pliable.

There are a lot of big contributors who would love to get their hands on all those resources, with the usual game of closed bidding and other rules to keep small bidders out of the process.






Great question.

 

[kmoney]

What's frustrating for them, is that they can't give away federal lands, because the president would veto any giveaway. So, they'd like to find a way to put our property in the hands of state governments, who would be more pliable.

There are a lot of big contributors who would love to get their hands on all those resources, with the usual game of closed bidding and other rules to keep small bidders out of the process.

I can see an argument that state governments would be more vulnerable to taking a short view and thus more likely to sell off lands. But I don't think there is a fundamental difference between federal ownership and state ownership or that private industry exploiting the lands is an inevitable result.

I'd still be against the bill.

 

[chrysostom]

it is almost as bad as keeping abortion legal

 

[kmoney]

it is almost as bad as keeping abortion legal

How does it rank with gay marriage? :think:

 

[chrysostom]

How does it rank with gay marriage? :think:

well what is the true test of being a christian?

 

[musterion]

I can see an argument that state governments would be more vulnerable to taking a short view and thus more likely to sell off lands. But I don't think there is a fundamental difference between federal ownership and state ownership or that private industry exploiting the lands is an inevitable result.

I'd still be against the bill.

States could be just as likely to sell off to interests that would directly benefit the residents of that state. If they don't, the people can deal with the malefactors at the next election.

But who do you appeal to when a federal administration tries to shut access to, say, veteran's memorials?

 

[The Barbarian]

But who do you appeal to when a federal administration tries to shut access to, say, veteran's memorials?

Judging by the way Boehner backed off after the public got wind of it, I'd say "appeal" was the wrong word for the message they sent Congress.