Utah’s Bid to Take Back Its Land

There’s little doubt that defenders of states’ rights are feeling emboldened by the perception that the Obama Administration has overstepped its authority on issues ranging from the bank bailouts to health care reform. The New York Times recently published a good piece on how local lawmakers have harnessed this notion as a rallying cry, a phenomenon that manifested itself in a rash of lawsuits and sovereignty statements (Kansas has just joined the party). The court challenge state attorneys general filed last week to the Obama Administration’s health-care reform bill, which argued the bill’s individual mandate is unconstitutional, was the most high-profile example of this tension. But a story out of Utah provides what is perhaps a more interesting flash point.

On Saturday, Gov. Gary Herbert signed two bills authorizing efforts to invoke eminent domain as a way to reclaim land from the U.S. government, which owns more than 60% of Utah. Lawmakers say the gambit could lead to a court ruling that permits Utah to take back valuable parcels, including a coal-rich plateau, from the feds. Proceeds from developing those lands would be used to bankroll the state’s cash-strapped public schools. “This is the solution to being the lowest-funded education system in the nation,” Utah Rep. Ken Sumsion, a Republican, told the Salt Lake <i>Tribune</i> last month.

As the Wall Street Journal and the AP report, however, it’s highly unlikely that judges would back a bid to seize federal lands:

The goal is to spark a U.S. Supreme Court battle that legislators’ own attorneys acknowledge has little chance of success.

But Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff and other Republicans say the case is still worth fighting, since the state could reap millions of dollars for state schools each year if it wins.

Framing the lawsuit – for which the state has set aside $3 million – as a way to bolster sagging schools may be politically fraught, given that Utah recently slashed education funding by $10 million. As the Journal notes, lawmakers may be hoping to capitalize on the state-sovereignty movement’s momentum, as well as a widespread frustration throughout Western states over government encroachment and federal control of natural resources. In an interview with the Deseret News after he signed the bills, Herbert summarized this irritation succinctly: “When the donkey doesn’t move sometimes you need to hit him across the head with a two by four just to get their attention.” Utah voters will have to decide whether delivering that blow is worth $3 million.

Related Topics: Uncategorized
  • Latest on Swampland

    Pete Souza / The White House via Getty Images

    Political Picures of the Week, May 18-25

    TIME’s photo editors bring you the best pictures of the past week from the Beltway and beyond.

    Obama Administration Blocks Global Health Fund To Fight Disease In Developing NationsHuffPost Politics

    From left: AP; ABACAUSA

    The Phony War: Obama and Romney Are Debating Character, Not Policy

    More than five months from Election Day, the back-and-forth about Mitt Romney’s record at Bain already feels played out. Unfortunately, there’s good reason to expect the campaign continues in this vein indefinitely. Neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney are terribly interested in dwelling on policy platforms. Romney’s plan to slash spending and keep taxes low on the wealthy isn’t especially popular, at least not at any level of detail beyond a blithe promise to shrink the deficit. Meanwhile, Obama’s signature first-term achievements, like health care, the stimulus and Wall Street reform, are all unpopular or tricky to sell. (The Dodd-Frank bill is the most popular of these, but hyping it means offending wealthy donors.) So what we’re getting instead is a superficial duel about character–and, worse, one that’s based on the largely false premise that the better man can better “manage” the economy back to health.

  • anon76

    Herbert would have been more accurate in summarizing the irritation by saying “Sometimes, when that face is staring at you in the mirror all funny-like, you just have to teach it a lesson by cutting off its nose”.
    .
    And thank you so much Adam for pointing out that the lawsuit to get funding for cash-strapped schools will cost $3M, and comes on the heels of a $10M cut in the state school budget. Calling out such hypocrisy is IMO in the best tradition of real journalism. Keep it up!

  • sacoharry

    I’m curious — genuinely, not sarcastically. When Utah became a state, did the federal govt. give the state control of all of the land, or did it hold onto some? In other words, why does the federal govt. own 60% of the state now? Was this land ever officially Utah’s, or is the state trying to take land that has always & forever been federal property?

  • anon76

    I don’t think that this is a particularly Utah-centric issue- most of the Western states have huge swaths owned by the feds. Incidentally, I wonder what the Ute Nation thinks of the state government “taking back their land”.

  • http://forgottenlord.livejournal.com forgottenlord

    So you cut the education budget by $10 million and then got yourself a lawsuit that you need to set aside $3 million that you are so certain you’re going to lose that you’ll even admit it publicly. This is the definition of bad policy

  • diecash1

    Perhaps the Utah governor is the product of a poor school system. It certainly seems like he failed at math.

  • Paul-no not that one

    “state attorney generals” or state attorneys general?
    .
    Utah is throwing away money they don’t. As forgottenlord says “the definition of bad policy”

  • Paul-no not that one

    Edit: Utah is throwing away money they don’t *have*.

  • http://elvisberg.wordpress.com Elvis Elvisberg

    There’s little doubt that defenders of states’ rights are feeling emboldened by the perception among the nation’s ignorant whites that the Obama Administration has overstepped its authority
    -
    For accuracy.
    -
    Also, should we expect a lawsuit from southern states against the federal government seeking reparations for slaves freed without compensation?

  • Alex Altman

    Thanks for the catch. I’ve fixed.

  • Paul-no not that one

    “Utah’s Bid to Take Back Its Land”
    ..
    “as a way to reclaim land ”
    .
    When, how, and why was it “taken away” by “the feds”?

  • chupkar

    Sooo, do the states want to take on federal disaster too? I mean, next time a big ‘ol something (fire, hurricane, snow storm) hit’s ‘em, we can just let them handle it.

  • http://erieangel.wordpress.com erieangel

    Paul, u took the words right out of my mouth.

    If anybody should be suing the feds over land taken away, it should be the TRUE natives of the land, those here BEFORE any whites ever dreamed of a North American continent.

    Shouldn’t it be much better for Utah to use that 3M for their cash strapped schools instead of this insane suit Utah is certain they will lose?

    Bad, bad policy.

    And people wonder why Dems think the Republicans are crazy.

  • sacredh

    If I recall my history correctly (always an iffy proposition), when many territories became states the federal government owned huge portions of the land. They were undeveloped, usually what we term wastelands (desert, mountains) and the federal government had control. They still have control. In many instances the government issued mining and logging permits to spur economic activity. Now the states want the land and the mineral rights. This is doomed to lose.
    .
    Throw away your money Utah.

  • http://erieangel.wordpress.com erieangel

    Another thought.

    One would think Utah would have better schools, what with all the gambling revenue the state takes in. Guess teaching their children just isn’t, probably never has been much of a priority for Utah.

  • http://elvisberg.wordpress.com Elvis Elvisberg

    And now there’s a plot to decrease their representation in Congress!
    -
    http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_03/023124.php

  • gysgt213

    Utah has had a 400 million dollar budget hole since 2008.
    .
    Also sinking the state’s budget is the pension system. “The reality of the problem is just coming to light,” said Liljenquist. “The losses from 2008 have blown a hole in the budget. We’ll need $400 million to build a way out of that hole.”

    He said it will take at least 25 years to replace it. “That’s 10,000 teachers’ salaries we can’t pay for the next 25 years,” said Liljenquist. “It’s a disaster. We’ll be cleaning up for a long time.”
    .
    http://www.clippertoday.com/view/full_story/5691502/article-Budget-woes-cast-shadow-over-2010-Utah-Legislature?instance=

  • Paul-no not that one

    As always, do your own homework Paul.
    .
    http://www.media.utah.edu/UHE/b/BUREAUOFLAND.html
    .
    “The process of land transfer to private interests was unusual in Utah Territory. The primary reason was conflicts between the Mormon Church and the United States over such subjects as polygamy and separation of church and state.”

    “Not until 1869 was U.S. law applicable in Utah Territory, and even then the primary impetus was the development of non-Mormon interests, especially those arising from mining and railroad development”

  • Paul-no not that one

    So my last question–
    .
    Why did the author tell us that Utah was *reclaiming* and *taking back* something that they never had?
    .
    That one I cannot look up.

  • grape_crush

    “This is the solution to being the lowest-funded education system in the nation,”

    There’s always that ‘Race To The Top’ thingy they could try to win.

  • Ivy_B

    I thought of PA’s budget problems as well. We are confronting the pension problem – helped along because the most conservative Repub candidate for governor supported changes to the state pension plan. He now says it was a mistake and he shouldn’t have voted for it,, but done is done.
    .
    The vesting period for state employees had been 10 years, but that was reduced to five years in a 2001 change to the pension law that boosted retirement benefits by 25 percent for state employees and 50 percent for lawmakers.The boost also had an early cap on employer rates putting in a balloon mortgage effect with the contribution rate going from 5% to over 30% when the cap expires in 2012.
    .
    More fiscal conservatism coming home to roost.

  • sacredh

    Because it sounds better than “Utah wants back something that wasn’t theirs in the first place”?

  • http://erieangel.wordpress.com erieangel

    Ivy, don’t even get me started on PA’s budget problems. I work in the community mental health field and we’ve seen budget cuts for years. We are constantly asked to do more with fewer and fewer dollars.

    In fact, the only area of PA finances that are never in trouble is the lottery fund. And that’s because the lottery proceeds benefit only elderly and disabled people. But I have been waiting for a governor to try to raid that fund to balance the budget. It will happen someday just like virtually president since Kennedy has raided the social security trust fund.

  • Mr. Nice Guy

    I think the Senecas in western New York might find this a bit ironic, too.

  • Mr. Nice Guy

    They’re hoping that – like the majority of “angry white people” out there – we won’t bother to look it up. We’ll just assume that there’s a rational basis for their claim.

  • FlownOver

    Well, at least the Kansas Legislature has proved it can masturbate with the best of them.

    If a state has a valid Constitutional complaint with federal action the remedy is in the courts, not in meaningless “resolutions” intended only to rile voters. If they know they can’t sustain a legal burden of proof, or aren’t willing to commit the public resources to sue, they might well STFU.

  • Mr. Nice Guy

    You’re thinking too pessimistically. They’re going to throw the money away, regardless. Thinking positively, one would ask, “How can I finagle my way in there to grab me some of that money?” And the answer, of course, is to become a consultant. If they’re not bright enough to see that this suit is a colossal waste, then they’d probably hire you to help them waste it.

  • Mr. Nice Guy

    Krispy Kreme on Peach St. rules! Especially since you can’t get KK anywhere else for quite a few miles, since the Buffalo store closed.
    .
    Sorry. I’m just thinking of Erie…

  • tarfunk

    What gambling revenue does Utah take in? As a resident of Salt Lake City, I’d like to know.

  • http://jcapan.wordpress.com jcapan

    Paul, if interested, I recommend Stegner’s Mormon Country. Just read recently–it illustrates that entire region’s history, vis a vis the US proper. Unique doesn’t begin to describe the relationship.

  • sunyatsen

    erieangel;

    Really? Might check your facts.. Just a thought.

  • deconstructiva

    I think Utah and Hawaii both prohibit gambling, and for this Nevada thanks ‘em both.

  • deconstructiva

    As hinted at in #2 above, I’ll bet the Native tribes there must be rolling their eyes in solumn amusement while watching the state and fed fight over their land.

  • formerlyjames

    “Herbert summarized this irritation succinctly: “When the donkey doesn’t move sometimes you need to hit him across the head with a two by four just to get their attention.” Utah voters will have to decide whether delivering that blow is worth $3 million.”
    ..
    Who is the donkey in question? Didn’t we settle this with the Civil War? Raising it’s ugly head again? I’ll be on the Union side.

  • formerlyjames

    I care that states own land or the Union does? Not likely.

  • sacoharry

    Thanks for the digging Paul, you’ve answered my question about who owned what when as well.

  • sasquatch08

    “There’s little doubt that defenders of states’ rights are feeling emboldened by the perception among the nation’s ignorant whites that the Obama Administration has overstepped its authority”

    Interesting. [Please note the sarcasm so thick you need a knife to cut through it.]

    I fail to see what issue race has played in this particular issue.

    I’m afraid I’m going to have suggest you’re the ignorant one and that you just want to bring up the issue of race so you can say anyone who disagrees with you is a racist. I say the same to people who raise the Civil War as an issue.
    ————

    Personally I have no problem with National or State Parks, I love them and use the regularly. The ones out west (where I’m actually from) far surpass anything in the east, but that is neither here nor there.

    Utah does have a point to some degree. What is the federal government doing controlling 60% of the state? At that point why not just downsize the state? Why say that “this land right here, which is more than half of the area of the state, is in the State of Utah, but Utah has absolutely no say in how it’s used, taxed or regulated”?

    Further, what those of us from out west pay attention to and no one else seems to is that in many cases, including Utah’s the federal government won’t leave well enough alone, they want MORE land under their direct and unfettered control along with the water that runs through it. Note the use of the word “through” that water goes somewhere else, the river doesn’t just stop at the state border. My friends in Utah are really steamed about this; not because of what is already under federal control but because the feds want to take control of another million or so acres that they DON’T HAVE ANY REASON TO CONTROL. The whine about wild horses, but that clearly isn’t the reason because there’s about 275,000 acres of that land they want that haven’t seen a wild horse in living memory.

    (Note: wild horses are doing just fine, according to the BLM their population is increasing, so apparently they don’t need federal assistance.)

    One of the reasons that people out west get so bent out of shape about this sort of thing is the restrictions the feds place on the flow of water. Why should Colorado get all the water while New Mexico or Texas dry up, costing jobs and the lives of countless species? One special interest group in one state gets a hold of a judge or a politician and all of a sudden it’s water for some and screw everyone else regardless of the fed that’s in charge of the project.

    If the federal government owned 60% of New Jersey, Pennsylvania or New York we would never hear the end of it.
    ————-
    “for state employees had been 10 years, but that was reduced to five years in a 2001 change to the pension law that boosted retirement benefits by 25 percent for state employees and 50 percent for lawmakers.”

    First off I see the problem here already… A benefit raise for the people who voted for it… can you say conflict of interest?

    Second, that policy is in no way fiscally conservative because it spends a ton of money on useless crap like benefit hikes for… politicians. How many times do I have to say this: Republican or Democrat they all LIE for a living!

  • http://patricksartor.wordpress.com patricksartor

    Utah saw that primarily Republican CEOs of financial firms runs moronically into the ground by bad policy got a bail out.

    So, when a states like Utah and Kansas are very Republican and moronically run their economies into the ground, they believe that is there turn.

    Now, if an individual who seeks work and does what is reasonable to make a good living can’t make any money, Republicans starve them.

    When businesses and Republican states run themselves into the ground, the Federal government is their piggy bank.

    They want land for revenue.

    Even if it has 0 to do with you (and not being between the synapses of your brain to know what you are thinking – so I will guess that you are very anti-racist)

    States rights is a coded term for racism very often.

    ” Atwater: As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry Dent and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now [the new Southern Strategy of Ronald Reagan] doesn’t have to do that. All you have to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues he’s campaigned on since 1964 and that’s fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster.

    Questioner: But the fact is, isn’t it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps?

    Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that. But I’m saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”"

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Atwater#Atwater_on_the_Southern_Strategy

    So “states rights” often means “I hate N”

  • http://erieangel.wordpress.com erieangel

    This year Congress denied those on social security and SSI (despite popular belief SSI does not come out of social security trust fund, its federal welfare for the disabled) raises, yet voted themselves huge wages.

    Simiarly in PA, state legislators got raises, but they discontinued the state portion of SSI payment. Its only $27.40, but it is money those on SSI have counted for years. These people already live far below the poverty line and the greedy legislators deny even more.

  • http://erieangel.wordpress.com erieangel

    Yeah, my bad. I realized my error as soon as got home from work where I posted my last two statements.

  • http://erieangel.wordpress.com erieangel

    I’m not a huge fan of Krispy Kreme. I prefer Mighy Fine on Parade St.

  • http://patricksartor.wordpress.com patricksartor

    Sasquach is mad at me because, I believe, he mistook me for somebody else and says I “twisted his words”.
    I just wrote above that there is a reason why “States Rights” is associated with bigotry.

    I, also, said that I believe him that he is very anti-racist.

  • formerlyjames

    sasquash, you refer to our federal government as “they”. You are a fool. Our federal government is “we”. We the people. You don’t understand my reference to the Civil War? State rights? Utah? Texas? Without the Union, they are nothing. Nada, Zero. That evil federal government. Next time you want to wage an illegal war, or defend my country, assemble the various state guards. Good luck with that.

  • formerlyjames

    sasquach’s mind is twisted. Never mind his words.

  • http://patricksartor.wordpress.com patricksartor

    Wow,
    Yesterday i was telling sasquach about a random, nerdy fact in economics and he was telling me about commercial diving and now he is… angry?
    .
    He seems more middle of the road than conservative when I see him here.
    .
    I don’t know why formerly says that sasquach had an illegal war.
    .
    I think I’ll come back in the morning to see who is up to what.

  • formerlyjames

    We the people of the United States, in order the form a more perfect union. Utah indeed, you fkn idiot.

  • formerlyjames

    I’ll leave, too. Good night.

  • sasquatch08

    Patrick-

    If you look at my reply to your post on the other thread, I believe you misread my statement which referred to you in the first line and 53_3 thereafter.

    I did a poor job of making that break as clear as possible. I wasn’t angry at you at all, rather I was mad at 53_3 for stating that I should move to Iran because I think executions are for entertainment. As stated in that thread I am generally anti-death penalty. I apologize for not making it more clear that I was replying to more than one post in my single post.

    From here on out when replying to multiple posts I will make sure to separate them with a very clear

    “———————-”

    so this doesn’t occur again.

    Again, my apologies for not making myself clear.
    ———————-
    formerlyjames-

    “sasquash, you refer to our federal government as “they”. You are a fool. Our federal government is “we”. We the people. You don’t understand my reference to the Civil War? State rights? Utah? Texas? Without the Union, they are nothing. Nada, Zero. That evil federal government. Next time you want to wage an illegal war, or defend my country, assemble the various state guards. Good luck with that.”

    “they” = politicians. They LIE FOR A LIVING. I don’t care if they are at the local, state or federal level, they lie through their teeth because it’s what gets them reelected.

    If what you mean with reference to the Civil War is about succession for the Union, you have a point. If you mean it in conjunction with statements that “whites are racist” you’re the fool. Utah is not talking about succession, therefore the Civil War has nothing to do with Utah being miffed about the feds wanting more land in Utah when they already control 60% of it.

    Since I have said this more than I care to; I AM NOT A REPUBLICAN. Do I need to hit you in the head with a tack hammer to get that statement freaking point across? (Oh wait, now I’m promoting violence. That wasn’t a reference to a Chris Farley movie, it was an unabashed call for violence! Go ahead and say it because I know it’s coming.) It wasn’t “my war”, I never supported it. I didn’t vote for Bush and I wasn’t even living in the country at the time it started.

    If you really want to run with the “Our federal government is “we”…” statement then it was YOUR war too because it was OUR war. Funny how those words and their usage don’t matter when it’s your opinion but as soon as some one disagrees just a bit suddenly “we” means everything.

  • http://jcapan.wordpress.com jcapan

    Squatch,
    .
    Do you know about the “Reply to this comment”? If you do and are just opting not to use it, fair enough. I didn’t like it at first either. But now I think its use makes for far less disjointed threads.

  • coloradofactoid

    Uh, Mr Sasquatch from the west – Colorado doesn’t supply water for Texas and I think New Mexico has most of its own headwaters. Check out Nevada, Arizona and California.
    Water law is a marvelous field for armies of lawyers and the federal lands in Utah don’t have much to do with them anyway.

  • sasquatch08

    Jcapan-

    First time I’ve used it. I opted out before because sometimes it posts other people’s stuff further back that I would think and makes it more disjointed in my mind. I’ll try it out though and see if it makes some stuff better.

    In this case I don’t think it would have because I was replying to 3 people at a time and did a poor job of breaking it up so it was obvious what was being said to whom.

    Thanks though.

  • apr2563

    States I would like to secede: Texas, Utah, Oklahoma, Mississippi. Any others? I know we would have to have treaties with them but we would not have to take seriously their constant whine about states rights. They all love the largesse they get from the Feds but don’t want to be part of a responsible citizenship.

  • rwroten

    The republicans have been concerned about frivolous law suits for decades and now they are engaging in a frivolous law suit of their own over the Health Bill that analysts say can’t be won. Utah has put aside 3 million to fund a frivolous law suit over retaking Federal lands the analysts say can’t be won. Money to burn for frivoulous lawsuits but no money to spend on the uninsured.

  • http://patricksartor.wordpress.com patricksartor

    apr2563,
    You’ve got it!
    “States right”, tax cutting for the rich and so on are all just like people who do not want to pay their bills.
    .
    Republicans are all about being deadbeats.
    .
    They all know from history – unless they use Faux News for their history the way rdw56 does – that we need social services for the poor and for the opportunity for some class mobility. But, they make every excuse not to pay for it.
    .
    “States rights” means that they, also, want their state to get all of the benefits of being a part of the US, but none of the responsibilities of being a part of the US.

  • jakeinidaho

    If I remember correctly back in the Clinton era the Fed’s took a large section of land to make a reserve. (Under pretences of protecting wild life) This reserve covers land that has the only coal in the United States that is of a specific type for making special alloys. Thus intern making the US buy this special coal from china. In my opinion it makes us weaker when we have to rely on nation’s that do not have our interest at heart.

  • molife54

    By converting those federal lands over to private lands the property taxes alone would add billions to the state coffers — not to mention the revenues from the sale. Every acre that is taken out of private hands and held by the “State” is also taking huge sums of revenue streams that could go to education, building infrastructure and bringing in much needed water. The fed or the state has no business owning these lands — ever.

  • http://patricksartor.wordpress.com patricksartor

    “The fed or the state has no business owning these lands — ever.”
    .
    Apparently, as far as I can tell – find me facts and I will gladly change my mind – this was always federal land.
    .
    If Utah or private individuals want the land, they should buy it at market price and raise the revenue for the other 49 states.
    .
    New York, among many of the states of the colonial period, do not have many federally owned highways or roads, either. Our states built nearly all of our own roads without federal money.
    .
    The older, Eastern states have a different deal with the federal government than the Western States.
    .
    I see no reason that lands owned by the people of all 50 states should be handed over to one state for free or should be handed over to private individuals for free.
    .
    I do not like corporate welfare or federal welfare for irresponsible CEOs or for irresponsible state governments.
    .
    It Utah had natural disasters, that would be different.
    .
    Republican governors and state legislatures refusing to find money to pay for things during prosperous times is an unnatural disaster. The federal government can and will pay for it’s poorest citizens to get by in all states. But, subsidizing low taxes by handing over free land is not the way.

  • http://patricksartor.wordpress.com patricksartor

    Jake,
    Except for flat earthers who do not believe in global warming (and I am not saying that I believe you are one) coal is the last thing we need more of right now.
    .
    The concept of “clean coal” seems to be out there with Ronald Reagan’s Star Wars so far.
    .
    Coal mining involves wretched working conditions very often with shortened lifespans for the workers. Even though for the very poorest this is better than nothing, it is, absolutely, not choice work by any stretch of the imagination.
    .
    I only saw part of Utah once on a cross country trip as a teenager with my family close to twenty five years ago, so I do not know this. If Utah has many sunny days or frequent high winds, then, perhaps the federal government can lease out some of the land for solar farms and/or wind farms.
    .
    That would bring jobs to Utah residents (Utahans? what do you call people from Utah?). The working conditions are dramatically superior and the impact on the environment is dramatically superior.

  • http://patricksartor.wordpress.com patricksartor

    Now that’s not right to say that!
    Hypocrisy is the hallmark of conservative thinking!
    .
    Without hypocrisy, there would be no NeoCons or Tea Party.

  • deconstructiva

    Utahans? what do you call people from Utah?
    .
    It’s tempting to say “Mormons” but for the other residents, apparently it’s “Utahn.”
    http://www.governor.utah.gov/dea/2010census.html

  • http://patricksartor.wordpress.com patricksartor

    http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/03/29/the-breadth-of-politics/comment-page-2/#comments
    .
    Ooooh!
    .
    LOL
    .

    26

    Why were haters of the United States military like the “White House advance people chang[ing] the television station in a troop mess hall, so that NCAA basketball would show in the background as President Obama shook hands, not motorcross, which had been playing”?

    Those military-hating White House advance people are lucky that some members of the United States military didn’t break their arms for touching a television that does not belong to the White House advance people.
    textee
    March 29, 2010
    at 11:53 pm
    .
    #

    *
    26.1

    Acording to dunedin56 @8, the NCAA basketball tourney followed motocross as part of normal programming, so there would have been NO channel changing required.
    .
    But don’t let this little snippet of info get in the way of a perfectly good rant, textee. Wouldn’t want facts to get in the way.
    afguy
    March 30, 2010
    at 11:09 am

    .
    27

    Textee:
    I hadn’t heard anything about that happening. If it did it’s a travesty.
    sasquatch08
    March 30, 2010
    at 1:47 am
    Reply to this comment
    .

    28

    Sasquatch,
    I think Textee is reading a different blog. Not one of sight of sound but of imagination.
    … In the Twilight Zone.
    patricksartor
    March 30, 2010
    at 7:42 am
    .

    29

    Patrick-

    If you run across the blog let me know so I can avoid it AAC.

  • diligentdave

    63.12%, just a few percentage points shy of 2/3 of ALL land in the State of UTAH is owned, and therefore controlled, by the US Federal Government! Utah ranks 2nd among all states of percentage of land owned by the Federal Government. Only Nevada is higher, with slightly over 80% (a full 4/5) is owned by the US Government.

    Twelve Western US states have percentages between that of Nevada’s 80% and Oregon’s 26.7% of ALL of their land owned by the Federal Government. In practice, this makes these states virtual colonies (rather than states) of the US Government.

    About a dozen or so years ago, then Congressman Jim Hansen of Utah proposed converting a mere 1% of Eastern states land to the Federal Government . The howls could be heard around the world!

    After Oregon, the state with the nearest percentage of state land owned by the Federal Government is New Hampshire, with less than 13% of their total land area owned by the Federal Government.

    And given the much larger land areas of Western states to those of other states, the percentage is dwarfed further by the sheer amount of acreage under Federal Government control!

    The issue comes down to this. When is a state’s sovereignty co-opted by the national government when so much of its land is owned and controlled by that national government?

    The US government should have sold or allowed a different form of squatting to have occurred, so that the land would be owned, controlled, and developed by private interests decades ago!

  • molife54

    If you “greenies” would have allowed nuclear plants in this country coal would not even be an issue. Nor, would carbon emissions be as great. So why don’t you ever take responsibility for your own ignorance?

    As for Reagan and Star Wars, once again, he was proven right. Did you miss the fact that we now have a laser-powered intercepter?

    Two Reagan quotes for you to remember:
    “Peace through Strength.”

    “There is no left and right, only up and down.”

    Which way are we headed today?

    gw

  • http://newyorkliberalstateofmind.wordpress.com Robert

    In a microcosm, New York State is the exemplar for government controlled lands and responsible stewardship. I have in mind the Adirondack and Catskill state parks, among others.

    From wiki: “The Adirondack Park is a publicly-protected area located in northeast New York. It is the largest park and the largest state-level protected area in the contiguous United States, and the largest National Historic Landmark.

    “The park covers some 6.1 million acres (9,400 mi²), a LAND ARE ABOUT THE SIZE OF VERMONT, OR OF THE YELLOWSTONE, YOSEMITE, GRAND CANYON, GLACIER AND GREAT SMOKEY MOUNTAINS NATIONAL PARKS – COMBINED.”

    In the last 15 years, NY has preserved an additional 1.5 million acres. In fact, NY has, by percentage, more parkland acreage than any other state in the lower 48. All of this is “decided” in Albany by people we ALL vote for here in NY. It is routine to scroll down a list of state parks and find 60,000 acres here, 55,000 or 45,000 there, and many, many smaller parcels.

    Here is a quick visual of the Adirondack and Catskill Preserves in relation to the rest of NY State: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Adirondack_and_Catskill_Parks_Locator.svg

    This has scarcely slowed down or stopped development in the rest of the state, as we well know. The preserved lands belong to all citizens of New York, not just private owners and developers. Surprisingly, NY has very few, although some very famous, national parks. The Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island are among the most prominent. Imagine if we were to start lobbying for “local control” of those two monuments! The hue and cry would be deafening. So why should Utah think it “owns” their federal land?

    Federal lands belong to all of us, from sea to shining sea. We all have a shared heritage in them, and a shared investment. Utah would be a wilderness if it weren’t for the United States. “United” is the operative word in our country. We better start understanding the meaning, and some of the red states need a thorough lesson in civics before they spout off their absurdist states’ rights theories, all the while wasting their taxpayers’ money on ideological and politically expedient lawsuits.

  • lupercal5

    @molife54:”If you “greenies” would have allowed nuclear plants in this country coal would not even be an issue. Nor, would carbon emissions be as great.”
    .
    because the possible harm from a nuclear disaster goes beyond left and right? imagine a plane heading straight toward a nuclear plant instead of a building. or some lunatic frince hitting at a nuclear facility instead of an irs building. think of chernobyl. i mean the implications are just so immense i can’t believe they don’t frighten you.
    .
    i’ve been opposed to nuclear plants but im more lenient toward is since obama announced funds to build one in GA. we’ll see how this plays out.

  • nflfoghorn

    In FL our lottery “supports” education…until you use it to plug financial holes instead of as a supplement, which happened 20 years ago under the Bob “Skippy” Martinez administration. Now only about 6% of all lottery $ goes directly to education and lack of funding is worse than ever. What a bargain.

  • lupercal5

    i do. cuz u might well see mining @ the grand canyon if the state owns it

  • http://newyorkliberalstateofmind.wordpress.com Robert

    This is just the kind of absurdist states’ rights argument that shows a real lack of clear understanding of what a federal-style (small r) republican government is all about.

    It takes no account of how various lands were settled, when they were settled, and by whom. The various states did not settle the lands cited in this comment. The federal government did. (Which, it might be pointed out consisted largely of money and resources originating in the East of the 19th century.) Conversely, the eastern states were, in most cases, settled well before the federal government even existed. Lands were first owned by colonial governments and then transferred to the new states when we united.

    In effect, for instance, the entire Louisiana Purchase was obtained by the federal government and then conveyed to the various states. Where did the money for purchase come from? Where did the settlement money and other resources come from? All of us. Not just the individual states. Likewise with the other large western states. The federal government was their organizer.

    If Utah or some other state wants to BUY some commonly held federal land at fair value, perhaps that is fine. Mineral and other values would have to be computed and agreed on. But why should we the entire people hand over for free land we all bought or claimed, fought for, and maintained over the last 100 to 200 years?

    I’m from New York, a state that has done amazingly well in preserving its commonly held lands. But, I’m wondering, would you consider our taking (along with New Jersey) the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island, and anything federally federally controlled in the Niagara Falls region? We’d also like Federal Hall in lower Manhattan back – where Washington took his first oath of office as president and was the site of our first American Congress. Why should people from Utah have any right to those things? After all, they’re within our state. Don’t they really belong to us?

  • lupercal5

    sasquatch08 thnx 4 being here. it makes for a more engaging conversation than some of the lunatics spewing talking points in here.

  • lupercal5

    “pay ur bills mutherf”.
    .
    next bidenism

  • lupercal5

    i am fairly impressed Robert. thank you for settling this issue once and for all.

  • queencersei

    So while it has become fashionable to use California as an example of Democratic mis-rule, in fact a Republican controlled state can also hopelessly screw up their economy too. Good to know!

  • formerlyjames

    Interesting post. Right winger logical la la land would extend the states rights argument to end public land ownership of any kind. That’s just the next step in their world. They don’t care about the federal or state ownership issue so much as not allowing any publicly held land for the public good. Using NY as an example, that’s some prime publicly owned real estate going to waste in Central Park. Great spot for more privately held skyscrapers, hotels, and parking garages.

  • queencersei

    I’m from one of those big western states that has a huge chunk of its land controlled by the BLM. And here is the flip side of this argument… A few years back my current Governor made mention of trying to do just what Utah is doing now. And the howls went up from all corners, the hikers, fishermen, boaters, campers, boy scouts etc. all came out of the woodwork and raised h#ll. Because once you privatize that land friends, it becomes private. Meaning it will get fenced off and the average person won’t be able to go hiking, fishing, hunting etc on it. At least not without being charged for it. That is the fear anyway. The Gov had to back down from that statement afterwards and hasn’t made mention of that scheme since. I’m betting the average Utahan probably feels the same way too.

  • http://patricksartor.wordpress.com patricksartor

    The cost of having a safe nuclear power plant has proven not to be cost effective.
    .
    If it were, I would support it.
    .
    Obama does support it, so long as it is a specific plan is cost effective.
    .
    For Star Wars, see
    http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/03/28/israel-today-and-so-long-for-now/#comments
    .
    It has been a toilet Republicans and, unfortunately, Clinton dumped out money into.
    .
    The Soviets stopped research in 1971 due to discoveries of how impractical it was.

  • tombesson

    It makes sense to me that the state of Utah buy the land in question from the Federal Government at fair market value and then invite all the Tea Party Nation members from other states to move there and live. This action would raise the IQ levels of both Utah and the rest of the states. Brilliant!

  • roughneck55

    I have wondered this same question. As far as I know the State had to buy the land because the land was won in the Mexican war. But if you find anything on the subject please let us know.

    As far as the Ute Nation goes. I think I distinctly remember the Govenor of the territory Brigham Young buying the land from the tribes at the time. He and Reverand Williams are the only ones that I know who did this. Not to say that maybe the price might have been unfair but in legal terms there was a purchase made.

  • snippymcsnipperson

    I have no problem with Utah getting the land that they are looking for. There should be a few strings attached though. They can no longer get Federal Funding for anything, i.e. disaster relief, school aid, National Guard subsides etc… Any military bases or installations should be closed as well.

    They will in-turn have to pay the Federal Government a monthly fee for their protection from invasion. We have to make sure that they are not allowed to sell any weapons grade metals obtained from these lands. All residents in Utah will now have to pay a toll to leave the state if using a highway or road that was constructed even partially with Federal funds.

    Any tax monies they earn from developing this land must be garnished to repay the Federal government for taking care of the land on their behalf for the last 100+ years. On the other hand, since we the citizens of the other 49 states effectively own 60% of the state already, why not just seize the other 40% by eminent domain ourselves.

    They were allowed statehood. This was not a right but an Act of Congress. What Congress giveth it shall taketh away. Why let them secede, just through them out.

  • http://www.millennialfoundation.org dfausti66

    The land issue has always been controversial. The Mormon Pioneers who settled much of the American West beginning on July 24, 1847 from Phoenix, AZ to San Diego, CA to Missoula, MT, to Grand Junction, CO and most place in the middle originally called the area of each of these cities the State of Deseret. As Utah applied statehood and finally achieved it on January 3, 1896, the State of Deseret was whittled away from it original size (larger than the current state of Alaska) to its present size. The federal government took the land from the pioneers. Personally, I agree that it is time to retain the federal lands for privatization.

    As a Utahn for six generations, I can appreciate Governor Herbert’s stand that these lands do need to be developed in order to improve the tax revenues of the state which has not had a shortfall in more than 35 years.

  • rmorris101

    The Federal government owns the land because no one else wanted it at the time. When the area became part of the United States, all lands not already owned by others became part of the public domain by default. And the government then went to great lengths to sell or even give away as much of it as possible. The lands that remain in Federal ownership are mostly those that had little or no discernable economic value at the time and that nobody therefore wanted.

  • http://erieangel.wordpress.com erieangel

    There is only one reason why the western states have so much more federal land. Thats because as the country expanded westward, people saw the need to set aside lands for prosperity, future generations and the protection of the beauty of country.

    And many eastern states may not have much federal land, but we have state land. PA, for instance has hundreds of miles worth of state parks. Not to mention the Allegheny State Forest.

    And in NYC, Central Park was built for much the same reason there is so much federal land in the west.

  • sasquatch08

    Actually historically speaking; the States created and allowed the formation of the federal government and gave it a mere 17 specific powers.

  • http://patricksartor.wordpress.com patricksartor

    sasquatch08,
    .
    That was from a time with no standing army, incredibly little international trade, limited interstate commerce, nothing which one today would call health care, no paved roads to speak of and more differences than similarities.
    .
    Education, law enforcement for within-state crimes, courts for within-state suits and prosecutions, prisons for such in-state crimes, roads, K through 12 education – the most intrusive laws of all – zoning laws are all town and state issues, just as they were in 1789.
    .
    Climate change, higher education (where former students go over state lines very often as do students themselves to go to college) national defense, welfare (which would lead to the free-rider problem if done by the states) public housing and interstate roads are federal.
    .
    All of the old things are still in local hands.
    .
    Nearly all of the things which became federal are subject to the free rider problem.
    .
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problem.
    .
    So, besides racism – which I know is not about you (for all I know you could, yourself be black and I am not going to say something like that about you) – “states rights” means, in reality “no program”.
    .
    If one state had health care and welfare and the neighboring states had neither and low taxes, all of the jobs would be in the other states and all of the benefits would be in the state with no jobs and would destroy that state.
    .
    So, I am reluctant to accept “states rights” without seeing a highly conservative agenda underneath.
    .

  • http://erieangel.wordpress.com erieangel

    I love that Republicans LOVE, LOVE, LOVE to spend taxpayer money and borrow money to pay for a huge military budget and preemptive wars. But they never, ever want to raise the taxes necessary to pay for the things they buy.

  • bwanadave

    I agree the federal gov needs to be put in its place and this suit is just one way to do that.

    The history of the West is unique. The Feds got control of the land by treaties with Mexico and the native populations. Statehood came slowly, for example New Mexico didn’t become a state until 1912. Prior to statehood these areas were terratories governed by the federal government.

    Being a Westerner myself I find the federal intrusion offensive. I wouldn’t support wholesale rape of the land but the people who live their should be able to shape their own destiny, not some pencil necked page chasing Eastern dandy.

  • http://newyorkliberalstateofmind.wordpress.com Robert

    Hey, pilgrim… come on back East and we’ll show you around. We love nothing better than head butting pseudo cowboys then rolling them down the street. And that’s BEFORE breakfast. It’s people like you who convince people like us in the nasty ol’ East that your stuff ought to be kept safe for all of us. Like keeping sharp objects out of the hands of children and the mentally challenged. Clearly you’re lacking intelligence, knowledge, or both.

    Even your own faux history of the West undermines your position. Notice, as you said, it wasn’t some state (such as Utah) that “got control” of the Spanish territories, it was the federal government. It was ALL the states at the time – none of which were in the legendary West. And guess what, pilgrim? For the terra firma you call home, our ancestors paid not only with their blood, but with $18 million in gold. That was from the U.S. Treasury, pilgrim, not one state’s or another’s. You know, all collective like? (That’s almost a half a billion in today’s money.) So, aside from our forebears’ blood and effort, which you can never repay, you’d all owe us that $18 million + 155 years worth of interest on the investment.

    And, before you dismiss the East, you should consider this. We’d be far better off without the West than you would be without us economically. The only western state that shows up in high GDP per capita is Wyoming, which has had its earning power skewed by outside millionaires seeking a tax haven. Unless you’d like to include California, but we all know that Cali considers itself more like the East than the West, so better ask nicely.

    As to dandies… you have an open invitation to meet us anytime. Should we say the streets of New York around 3, after the bars are closed and it’s just us pencil necks and you? Good luck, pilgrim.

  • apoehler

    Keep tilting at those windmills and wasting time and effort.

  • apr2563

    bwana: As a life long westerner myself, I had hoped that 9/11 would have convinced everyone that the east coast has patriotic and strong “manly” citizens. However, those westerners who seem insecure about their manliness seem to have to keep trying to prove how tough they are.

  • http://newyorkliberalstateofmind.wordpress.com Robert

    apr2563 – Why thanks. You might find this blog post interesting, or at least ironic. Entitled:

    Factoid of the Day – Flag Waving, Raving Patriots of the Northeast!

    http://nyliberalstateofmind.blogspot.com/2010/02/factoid-of-day-flag-waving-raving.html

  • sasquatch08

    Patrick-

    Sensible as always.

    My problem was with other people claiming that basically no matter what happens the federal government can do what it wants because it creates states which is just not so.

    In this particular case I have to admit that I too was skeptical (I mean we are talking about Utah here). But it’s actually pretty complicated. I just saw an interview with one of their state representatives Carl Wimmer on Fox (gasp! Actually I was on my way up to FX). He was pretty well taken to task for this issue, as this is actually the first time that a state has attempted to use eminent domain to take land from the federal government.

    His argument was basically this:

    When Utah became a state it entered into an agreement with the federal government as to management of certain rather large pieces of land within Utah proper. The agreement was that these lands would belong solely to Utah and be placed in a trust. The lands in this trust could be sold or developed as Utah wished and the money made from said sales or developments would go to fund education in Utah. Utah would have discretion over this so that they didn’t make all the money at once and blow it etc.

    Utah now argues that portions of these lands were taken by the federal government to create National Monuments and the like and that in doing so the federal government 1) broke a promise to Utah by forcing the removal of these lands from the trust and 2) in some cases forbid Utah access to billions of dollars in development wealth by prohibiting access to large deposits of things like natural gas, hence education in Utah has suffered. Utah now wants to use eminent domain to regain the land and extract resources like natural gas to help fund it’s K-12 education program.

    I have no idea where you are from, but I found something interesting on a government website, a map of the entire United States showing what is owned by the federal government (http://www.nationalatlas.gov/printable/images/pdf/fedlands/fedlands3.pdf)

    Just look at how much of the Western U.S. is owned by the federal government compared to back East. Is it really any wonder that people in those states are a bit miffed and say that people from the East can’t really understand their situation?

    Look at states like Ohio and New York compared to states like Utah and Nevada. Those states have no control over the vast majority of their own state! Which clearly New Yorkers can’t understand because 0% of their state is controlled by the federal government.

    What really gets people out West is the regulation, I grew up in New Mexico. Not far from my house was a huge swath for BLM (Bureau of Land Management) where you are allowed to hunt; but you can’t. No guns are allowed, no bows, no crossbows and the setting of traps is a felony. Of course you’re welcome to hunt white tail deer all you want, but you’ll have to run it down and kill it with your bare hands and then show that you have the permit to do so. In another area adjacent to this one guns are permitted for target shooting, but the taking of game or varmint animals was strictly forbidden. I should say guns WERE legal because after some wannabe gangbanger from Albuquerque showed up in 2007 and shot a farmers dog in the nearby area discharging firearms was strictly banned. This was a great place to shoot, perfect natural backstops of stone 60 feet high and people out there cared enough (yes even the gun nuts cared) about the environment to police their own brass (ejected shell casings) and other trash. Pack it in, pack it out was the unwritten rule at that location.

    The rules and regulations are arcane, the punishments for breaking them draconian and in most places out West the land hasn’t been surveyed recently so the maps are all out of date. In 2008 the HEAD of the BLM in New Mexico was arrested because he took a deer 25 yards inside a restricted area. He didn’t know it was restricted and thought it was legal. Why? The map he had from his OWN SERVICE was 50 years old and the BLM had marked the area so poorly even the guy in charge of the area didn’t know exactly where he was.

    When the leaders of government agencies can’t tell you how, why, when and where things are legal on the lands they themselves manage is it any wonder that people think they’re doing a poor job and want them out of there?

  • molife54

    this is to the bad ass NYC dude:

    You so bad! I don’t think us weanie westerners could handle your shit. It just sounds sooo bad dude. 3 a.m.? we get up at 4, so could we do it then? But please understand that we are so intimidated by you and your NYC BS. Next time you have a terrorist attack please don’t ask us to save your ass again.

    But of course we will, because unlike you we truly understand what America is really all about. And it ain’t about kickin your ass at 3 in the morning. Although we’d get that done in a New York minute….dude!

    gw

  • http://newyorkliberalstateofmind.wordpress.com Robert

    sasquatch… you said “When Utah became a state it entered into an agreement with the federal government as to management of certain rather large pieces of land within Utah proper. The agreement was that these lands would belong solely to Utah and be placed in a trust.”

    So where does this agreement reside? Utah’s Constitution? Sure isn’t in the US Constitution or Amendments, and I’d think that would be the last word.

    How about some real facts and not some extremist’s opinion?

  • apr2563

    robert: Thanks for the link. Interesting statistics. I just get so tired of the right wing rhetoric about “real americans”. I have personally known liberals who have died in defense of this country. The r.w. elitism and arrogance is staggering.

  • molife54

    I find it very interesting that no one has refuted or even addressed even one of my points. Instead I get branded a right-winger and that’s in your world all that needs to be said. Just more evidence that we live in a country divided by those who want us all to be comrades (except for us RWs who will be summarily shot at the first opportunity) and those who want to be citizens.

    The real line forms on the right. I guaran-damn-tee that!

  • sasquatch08

    Robert-

    So anyone who disagrees is an extremist?

    I told you this was all based on statements by a State Legislator whose name I gave you. I made no claim that this was any sort of “ultimate truth”.

    Further, almost every state other than the original 13 colonies entered into a “compact” with the federal government on the issues surrounding statehood. That compact is a legally binding agreement on what the state would do and the federal government would do to make statehood come to fruition. I have not read this document as pertains to Utah nor any other state. However, I am certainly not going to brand anyone a liar or “extremist” for saying something is in it.

    Fact: Under Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution for the United States.

    The federal government cannot just take land from a state. A citizen yes, with due compensation, but not a state. If the federal government wishes to repossess land from a state it can ONLY do so with the consent of the state’s legislature, which Utah claims was never given hence all land taken by the federal government within Utah reverts right back to… Utah.

    The Constitution is the last word and it states that the federal government can’t pass laws or acts which abridge a legal contract. If this elected representative is correct and the federal government entered into a contract, then what they have done since broke that contract and Utah is in the right 100% to demand their land back.

  • http://patricksartor.wordpress.com patricksartor

    I live in NYC.
    .
    I grew up in the suburbs of NYC, lived in urban sections of Boston (600k people in Boston compared to 8 mil in NYC – making Boston look like a village by comparison) for fifteen years and moved here five years ago.
    .
    A landmark in NYC – especially Manhattan – is a tree. So, a trip out the someplace totally rural is fun and incredibly different (what do you mean that there is no Dunkin Donuts a hundred feet away – it’s forty five miles away!).
    .
    For guns, NYC you do not want anybody shooting a gun within city limits at all, ever since there is a 99.999% chance you will hit a person or property.
    .
    I haven’t but, I would consider hunting. That is, of course, on large, open pieces of land with a registered riffle. (About a mile from here is where NYC hunting licenses are issued for people who take their guns far, far from here to hunting ranges).
    .
    Actually, considering that maintaining parks cost big money, when it comes to Federal land, sometimes (if ever) we think of Federal parks and say, “Hey, why don’t we have the feds paying for our parks”.
    .
    State governments aren’t always better than the Feds. Some states are much more bureaucratic than the feds. So, I do not know if it would an improvement.
    .
    It is impossible to say if your situation with hunting would be any better or any worse with state control.
    .
    On the other hand, I see it this way: How many people from NYC get to see the National Parks we, also, pay for?

  • sasquatch08

    Patrick-

    Probably not a lot considering the cost of living in NYC. Hell I think Columbus Ohio is expensive.
    .
    I just look at the whole thing and I don’t think the feds need more land, power or money. If anything they need less.
    .
    Not that you’ve (Patrick) said anything like this, but here’s an idea for everyone else to chew on: what happens when Democrats set up a “perfect” system where the government controls everything and (excuse me but this is laughable but I’ll say it for arguments sake) runs it perfectly… but then another George W. Bush gets elected? Then what?

  • http://patricksartor.wordpress.com patricksartor

    As for Utah’s agreement, I would want to know what a constitutional lawyer would have to say about it.
    .
    If it is valid, then Utah is right.
    .
    If it is not, then Utah is wasting time.

  • innocentiousxii

    Ignorance is bliss, or so they say and most of the comments here have shown a great deal of ignorance. First of all anyone who was around when President Clinton declared over 1.8 million acres of Utah land as a national monument you may not have also heard of the thousands effected financially by that decision, nor the considerable lack of anything worth protecting.

    As for the Ute’s in Utah, well I know a few and they are as upset about the lack of control the state has on it’s own land as ‘normal?’ residents.

    How racist can you be in differentiating between white residents here in Utah and American Indian residents?

    Also the one thing about Utah is that we are HIGHLY educated. Not only that but according to the U.S. Bureau of Census the state spends a larger percentage of state dollars on education then any other state! So please forgive us if when the economy takes a down turn we don’t look and wonder why weeds growing in fertile land is better then crops and sand blowing in the wind makes more sense then an oil rig or coal mine.

    We also believe in a balanced budget and IF we win the right to use some of the land that is lying fallow and dormant it is possible that we can shift some of the tax burden from the populace to industry rental of the land.

    The cut had to occur and to be honest will be rough for everyone here in education. Now here is the clincher the little 3 million in cost for the law suit would have done very little to aid our schools where as the billions of revenue that could exist if we could touch the federal land is worth the gamble. Even if it is lost it is at least a statement of disgust with the Federal Governments mismanagement of this area.

    You all seem to know sooooo much about what is really going on here. Please rather then contempt and scorn try placing yourselves in the states shoes. As I said at the top ignorance is bliss and I have seen it demonstrated in spades in this article and in comments.

  • http://newyorkliberalstateofmind.wordpress.com Robert

    If you’re so highly educated how come you don’t the difference between effected and affected?

  • http://patricksartor.wordpress.com patricksartor

    sasquatch08,
    .
    A conservative misconception is that anybody in any democratic country wants to have the government in charge of everything.
    .
    Communists, now a punchline to a joke rather than a scare (except Napal and Columbia who have communist rebels – I say introduce the communists to modern Russia and the communists will just become gangsters instead) did not believe in private goods. Besides not believing in free elections, they believed everything was better done by the government.
    .
    Sometimes it seems like conservatives want to close down all government and have police departments, fire departments and K through 12 pay only. (Not anybody specific, but, it seems that way).
    .
    Conservatives often seem to act like the world is a small, flat place with one edge in California and the other on the edge of New England.
    .
    Health care run as a public good as been wildly successful in many countries and much better at getting patients to doctors and medicine but not spectacular in others.
    .
    Higher education is all of the other industrialized countries it is the same way – students with dead beat or dead parents can study for free along side the child of millionaires if they both have the same GPA or test scores.
    .
    Just as conservatives could not imagine having the cops give them a bill for looking for who murdered their friend or relative, we need to be at the balance.
    .
    OT: The wages here, except for fast food and other entry level jobs in NYC is proportionately much higher than Ohio, too. I visited my Uncle in Akron, OH. It is the cheapest region of the US for housing, but the jobs usually pay garbage.
    .
    If I wanted to work at McDonalds all of my life, I would rush to Akron. If I want to make good money but pay most of it back in rent or a mortgage, then NYC I stay.

  • innocentiousxii

    didn’t proof read lol

  • http://patricksartor.wordpress.com patricksartor

    To answer Sasquach’s question, if another GWB gets appointed president, there is always Canada for four years.
    .
    With his attacking the wrong country, another GWB would, probably get angry terrorists to set off nukes in the US, so, Canada will be safer.

  • innocentiousxii

    Oh and I was talking statistics not myself ( even though I have a Masters Degree which you can argue either way on being ‘highly’ educated ). Plus if you nit-pick things like that then honestly are you not just trolling at that point?

    Also effected as in the sentence is a perfectly legitimate use in that situation as in the effect of the decision was to cause financial devastation. In other words while effect is normally a noun in the clause above it is an acceptable use as a verb since WHEN effect is used as a verb it means “to bring about”.

    Regardless it would have been best to use the verb affect. Just trying to minimize my blatant ‘ignorance’

  • http://newyorkliberalstateofmind.wordpress.com Robert

    Sasquatch – if you’re referring to the following in the Constitution, it concerns the establishment of military facilities, or a national capitol:

    “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…”

    It’s irrelevant to your argument, but it’s doubly so because it addresses land the states might already own, not land the federal government owns. If anything, Utah is trying, in this case, to “repossess” the land we as a republic have owned since the end of the Mexican War and subsequent payments of purchase-indemnities to Mexico. Utah did not exist as a state at the time, so there was no ownership by the future state. The “agreement” you speak of is non-existent.

    As to who I think is an extremist… I think anyone who is arguing ideas and actions that were well hashed over and settled and watered with blood in the Civil War is an extremist. States’ Rights arguments are the arguments of sore losers. It was true in 1860 as the moral tide turned against slavery; it’s true today because the right wing doesn’t like the results of a landslide election; and it will be true anytime people look to parochial concerns over the national good.

  • http://patricksartor.wordpress.com patricksartor

    “The Antiquities Act of 1906, officially An Act for the Preservation of American Antiquities (16 USC 431–433), is an act passed by the United States Congress and signed into law by Theodore Roosevelt on June 8, 1906 giving the President of the United States authority to, by executive order, restrict the use of particular public land owned by the federal government. The Act has been used over a hundred times since its passage. Its use frequently creates significant controversy”
    .
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiquities_Act
    .
    This would mean that the land was already federal by the time Clinton signed it over.
    .
    This does not finish the story even though it clarifies some of it.
    .
    How did it, if it did, leave the State of Utah’s hand’s?

  • innocentiousxii

    Never mind I reread the sentence again and I should have used affected for certain… shoot.

  • innocentiousxii

    patricksartor you are correct… I was not making a claim in the sense that the Federal Government did not have a Federal RIGHT to take the land only that it was pointless as there was nothing additional that it protected. Everything worth protecting was already protected at that point. It just kicked people who were using the land off ( taking away the right the state had in managing it ) which is what the original agreement was between the state and the Federal Government when the state became a state. So the law that came after that Clinton used is actually part of the basis of the law suit I believe.

  • http://newyorkliberalstateofmind.wordpress.com Robert

    imminent, eminent, immanent – I know you were typing with passion!

  • innocentiousxii

    lol thanks for understanding ;-)

  • innocentiousxii

    Oh and to clarify the MANAGEMENT is what left the hands of the state. Not the ‘rights’ of the property… if that makes any sense.

    If you lived in a state where the majority of it is ‘owned’ by the Federal Government I think you develop a greater appreciation as to how crappy a landholder they are… That part is just my opinion of course.

    Again try placing yourself in our states shoes where you can not touch over 70% of the land because it does not belong to the state…

    Think about that for other states back East. It is ludicrous. Again this is not to say that the Federal Government does not own the land as clearly it does. We just want the right to use it.

  • http://patricksartor.wordpress.com patricksartor

    Then I think, rather than a lawsuit, the governor of Utah should be in Washington saying “pretty please.. with a fake endorsement for HCR on top.”
    .
    That would cost less than $3 Mil and, probably, as unlikely to get the land back to Utah’s management.

  • http://newyorkliberalstateofmind.wordpress.com Robert

    Well, if somebody somewhere in Utah would just produce this alleged document/agreement, it would go a long way to solving the problem.

    Here’s another point, it seems that the people who are presenting the case here on behalf of Utah aren’t sure if all this acreage is worthless scrub, good hunting grounds, potential farmland, or mineral rich land that will lead you out of the financial wilderness of state budget deficits (in what? like 20 years after it’s gone through litigation, exploitation and despoliation).

    If I were a Utahn – is that correct? – I would look very carefully at the business interests that are backing up your honorable legislators and other government officials. Face it, the average Jack and Jill aren’t really going to see a dime of any money if these lands ever are turned over to state government. And then, what will you have done?

  • whispersd

    It what sense were the dementia-addled thoughts of Reagan vis-a-vis “:Star Wars” correct? After 25+ years of tests and billions and billions of dollars, we have a system that can intercept a missile, as long as the missile is broadcasting its GPS coordinates.

    Not that we need such a system. But the lust for a missile defense system has never been about necessity. Rather, it is simply a new area for defense contractors to live off the fat of the taxpayer. Because right-wing drones hate government spending, _unless_ it entails buying weapons that feed the collective ego.

    BTW, let’s remember that for the first half of 2001, the Bush administration considered missile defense to be a high priority, while counter-terrorism was shunted to the back shelf. And we all know how well that worked out!

  • innocentiousxii

    Lol, we have tried the begging route and all it got was the 1.8 Million acres of land designated as a new National Monument.

    No it is time to stop playing nice and make a statement. Even if it is not heard. At times it is better to go down swinging then going gently into the night.

    I understand what you are suggesting but it doesn’t work like that in the Federal system and even if it did it would mean you have to lick the boots of whatever politician is in Washington at the time or they can take it all away with a snap of their fingers.

    That is what this law suit is really about. Pride, and hope. It may be a false hope, but still.

  • http://patricksartor.wordpress.com patricksartor

    “Just more evidence that we live in a country divided by those who want us all to be comrades (except for us RWs who will be summarily shot at the first opportunity) and those who want to be citizens.”
    .
    You’ve got it all wrong.
    .
    Conservatives want everybody to be armed to the teeth.
    .
    We just intend to make fun of you until you want to shoot us, but, since there is a five day waiting period and if you show up asking for your license for a rocket launcher frothing at the mouth, you won’t get one.
    .
    Being online with about 85% Liberals, 10% moderates and 5% conservatives is about the worst that will happen.
    .
    We even oppose wire tapping people for no reason the way that GWB did.

  • http://newyorkliberalstateofmind.wordpress.com Robert

    Hey… I’m sure the (mis)management of land by the feds is unbelievable. But, incompetent government is not restricted to the federal level. Look at what just happened with the high school kid who hung herself in Massachusetts. Little town, pretty place, and the school officials just looked away for months. And school boards are about as local as government gets.

    By the way, being from NYC where people and man-made infrastructure are our main resources, I MUST tell you that federal interference is a huge problem here. Washington telling us how to build a mass transit system? As if!) And, when it’s not interference, it’s an awful lack of oversight – you know, as in the financial meltdown, sponsored by Washington, New York and London.

    I asked this before in an earlier post. Does all this mean if this craziness actually starts happening that we in NY will gain control of the Statue of Liberty? We really, really, really want it. I mean, heck, what’s it got to do with the other 49 states?

  • innocentiousxii

    One other sad thing. people who have not ever had to try to deal with a federal bureaucracy over time cannot understand how fickle it really is. The power shifts that occur are so dramatic that when over 70% of your state is not yours the true ramifications of inconsistency become clear.

    While a strong federal government is a good thing , once it starts trampling the ability for people to work, make a living, or create wealth does it not become a tyrant instead?

    It is just a thought, a question to ponder. Why was King George called a tyrant? Was it not the lack of involvement with the people? Tell you what we will gladly trade all future federal assistance in the event of a natural disaster for complete control of our land.

    Deal? You see a disaster when it hits is devastating. However we will get over it. But not giving full access to our lands will devastate us for much longer. It has hurt, it will continue to hurt.

  • innocentiousxii

    No it is not to say the ball can not be dropped on any number of state or local levels. But don’t you see their is a difference when it is local versus Federal. In Utah I have a voice of about one in a million. On the Federal level it is on in a hundred and fifty million ( if everyone voted in both cases ). Second as far as the Federal government goes they could care less about me. However my local school board if they screw up will face nigh unto immediate consequences.

    As far as the federal interference in your state why is it there at all? There is a difference between regulation and over-regulation. Also Please understand in this State we are not asking for all of the land back. We only want to control 90% of the stuff that has nothing interesting on it. The 10% that does the Federal Government can keep and preserve as national Monuments. We agree with that 10%!!! Or give it to us to manage as State Parks we are happy to do that as well!!!!

  • http://newyorkliberalstateofmind.wordpress.com Robert

    Of course the closer to the government on any given level, the better – generally. But there are plenty of corrupt or incompetent local and state governments.

    Obviously NY is a big state by population and fairly large in area for an eastern state. You should really take a look and see how here we’ve preserved millions and millions of acres of land on the state level… the Adirondack Preserve is the biggest park in the lower 48. Shocking, eh? But true. I think in total we have preserved about 9,000 square miles out of 54,000 and we have no Federal lands to speak of. But, we had extraordinary visionaries way back when. The concept of federally owned open land didn’t exist away back when. Ironically, it was probably the hyper development along the eastern seaboard and the Great Lakes that inspired people to preserve lands in the West. Like a big uh-oh… what have we done?!! Better save some land for something other than factories and houses. People are always carping about how Albany doesn’t know what it’s doing with the open land and want to build big hotels and such up there.

    Ah well… anyway… have a good night… my wife just came by and pulled my side burn hair and not in a fun way…. goodnight Utah and goodnight America!

  • iwanttoteabagyourmama

    molife54: Actually several of your points were directly addressed in comments that followed. Why don’t you take responsibility for your own ignorance?

    It is fitting that you would idolize Reagan – he, too, was missing something in the “taking responsibility for ignorance” department. So for several years we were led by a man who thought ketchup was a vegetable. Not only was he an idiot, but he was a monster. He allowed over 10,000 Americans to die from disease because he didn’t want to publicly address the issue. Yeah, great guy, your idol.

  • sasquatch08

    “Hey… I’m sure the (mis)management of land by the feds is unbelievable. But, incompetent government is not restricted to the federal level. Look at what just happened with the high school kid who hung herself in Massachusetts. Little town, pretty place, and the school officials just looked away for months.”

    So we’d want to place more power in the hands of inept officials because…?

  • sasquatch08

    Actually the “moral tide” against slavery started to turn in the late 1700′s which is why it was assumed by the Framers that it wasn’t needed to ban it in the Constitution, not to mention the Constitution wouldn’t have been ratified if it outlawed slavery.

    Women also had the right to vote is most states until the early 1800′s, but feminists hate it when you bring that up.

    And 54% isn’t a landslide last time I checked. If Republicans win back the House and Senate I’m sure there will be plenty of liberals screaming about it.

    “The “agreement” you speak of is non-existent”

    Just quoting a politician on that one. We’ll see if he told the truth or not personally I am not the great scholar on Utah that you claim to be.

  • jlbrumb

    “i’ve been opposed to nuclear plants but im more lenient toward is since obama announced funds to build one in GA. we’ll see how this plays out.”

    And when does POTUS plan to bring HIS plant online?

  • http://newyorkliberalstateofmind.wordpress.com Robert

    Sasqquatch – you said:

    “Actually the “moral tide” against slavery started to turn in the late 1700′s which is why it was assumed by the Framers that it wasn’t needed to ban it in the Constitution, not to mention the Constitution wouldn’t have been ratified if it outlawed slavery.”

    Perhaps it had barely “started.” The tide was either turning or not. If the tide had really been turning in the late 1700s, slavery would have been outlawed peacefully a few years later and no Civil War would have been necessary 70 years afterward. Yes, the NW Territories when organized in 1787 were slavery free, but certainly the South wasn’t letting go of the “peculiar institution” without a good whooping.

    You can call whatever you’d like a landslide or not… if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks, it’s a duck. The right wing is trying to wish it all away…. but if you check the Presidency, House, Senate, governorships, and state legislatures, you’ll see that Dems are in charge on every level and all Republicans can say is “No” when they’re not busy saying “I don’t know.” As to winning back the Senate or House… if wishes were horses, beggars would ride… you all need to stop reading nationwide polls and reading state to state and district to district polls. Not looking all that peachy for the radical right wingers at all. Anti-Americanism never has played well with the electorate and that’s all you got.

    As to the document/agreement. I’m not claiming to be a scholar on Utah, and you can make fun of whatever I’m saying all you like. But, it’s you who carted in Wimmer’s extremist states’ rights views and seem to support them. So typical of the No-Nothing partiers… just throw excrement around and leave others to clean it up. WHERE’S THE DOCUMENT? Neither you or Wimmer can come up with the document. You would think it would be smack dab in the middle of Utah’s state constitution – ohhh, maybe it’s a SECRET document inscribed on a golden plate… and it’s hidden until the final days, and these ARE the final days because the Dems are riding high. So.. so… so… you real Americans can dig it up and take back the country!!!!

    Smarten up and get real with yourselves.

blog comments powered by Disqus