Selling Public Land for Budget Reconciliatory Bill

[Pucky Freak]

 

[geetar]

View attachment 368054

Nothing like a wolf pack eating the fetus out of a cow elk in your front yard.

 

[VMHunter]

At that point they won’t want to introduce wolves citing the Parks and Wildlife dept studies and try to get them removed.

 

[Justabirdwatcher]

To have $30+ Trillion in debt means that we, mostly my generation and older, have asked for $30+ Trillion of government services that we were unwilling to pay for. That's $30+ Trillion of wealth sitting on the balance sheets of older Americans that should have been used to pay for the services we demanded.

Boomers claim we have been such a hard working, prosperous, and industrious generation, which could be true, but one truism beyond any doubt is that we sure don't like to pay our own way. We've used the election and legislative process to force future generations to pay for our desired level of services.

Finally a boomer who admits it. Pretty refreshing.
Trouble is, the boomers are still running all three branches of government and have set the narrative through the media they own for decades now.
Boomers grew up with government subsidized outdoor recreation, which is why they don't have a clue about the real cost of managing public land.

 

[VMHunter]

I think this boomer was an accountant so this kinda math makes more sense to him

 

[hank4elk]

Listened to recent Rinella with about FS ,BLM, etc land transfers. Had a new Sen. on. ??? Air fire fighter contractor.
Seemed reasonable until he just laughed of the NP sales and edged on BLM & FS lands.
Mentioned all the Federal lands from closed bases and such. Seems like an idea until I remember all the toxic waste left and nothing done.
We have developments now abandoned due to the toxic waste left under them.
Guy was real gung ho on drilling and mining and all those lands that could be developed.

Like the drillers and miners clean up with narry a trace...
I just know how many places I have hunted around with crap left from mining and drilling. Waiting for taxpayer $ or a superfund listing.
How many logging sites with marked trees left, piles of slash left, roads eroding. $50k bond that an extra load of logs will cover easy.

Waste & fraud.

 

[ImBillT]

I believe this is the amendment that was rejected

U.S. Senate: U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 119th Congress - 1st Session

www.senate.gov

If you read the amendment, it doesn’t prevent the sale of federal lands. It only states that the proceeds from such a sale cannot be used to reduce the deficit. It literally calls for the creation of a “deficit neutral fund” to place those proceeds in, so that they can only be used to prevent the deficit from going up.

Did I misunderstand it?

 

[ImBillT]

Finally a boomer who admits it. Pretty refreshing.
Trouble is, the boomers are still running all three branches of government and have set the narrative through the media they own for decades now.
Boomers grew up with government subsidized outdoor recreation, which is why they don't have a clue about the real cost of managing public land.

Yep. His post reminded me of a conversation I had with a guy that was smoking a cigarette and wearing an “I’m with her” hat in early 2008. I was in college, and had just finished mowing his lawn for $30. Standing in front of his $250k house(2008 dollars), he began to tell me why we needed to make insurance mandatory and make everyone pay the same amount regardless of age and health status because he couldn’t afford how much his insurance cost as he got older. I said so “so it’s okay for you to pay almost nothing for insurance while you get married, have kids, and buy a very nice home, but before I can have kids and buy a house I have to pay 5X what I currently pay for health insurance so that yours won’t increase in price?” He just told me that I would understand when I was his age.

 

[hank4elk]

Tim Sheehy was the Sen.
Open up logging and clearing the understory. Cool.
Downplayed milled lumber and made no mention of what would replace it and what to do with good timber and the byproducts
Towns need mills. Cool. For what? 2x4's? Paper? Lambeams & chip board? Biomass?

Heard some of the developments around Las Vegas that was dubbed affordable housing had houses selling for $1-14 mil........

 

[BuzzH]

Leaked federal roadmap for public land called 'industry wish list' - WyoFile

The draft four-year plan for Western lands proposes developing natural resources for American prosperity.

wyofile.com

 

[Straight Arrow]

Tim Sheehy was the Sen

He's my Senator ... another gazillionaire, Montana "cattle rancher", aerial fire fighting company owner, former Navy Seal, Naval Academy graduate, mid-America raised with wealth, highly subsidized political newcomer with full force of the party behind him ... but NO clue about Montana values, problems, public lands legacy, and so much more of importance to real Montanans currently.
This military veteran with the highest of credentials and a stellar resume has the background, the smarts, and the potential to be another great US Senator from Montana ... however, so far he has demonstrated only loyalty to the throne and displays the same political puppetry traits encumbering the rest of the Montana delegation.
I will acknowledge and applaud each of their stances and leadership regarding "public lands in public hands" ... but that's the extent of any applause for their positions and integrity.

 

[Forkyfinder]

He's my Senator ... another gazillionaire, Montana "cattle rancher", aerial fire fighting company owner, former Navy Seal, Naval Academy graduate, mid-America raised with wealth, highly subsidized political newcomer with full force of the party behind him ... but NO clue about Montana values, problems, public lands legacy, and so much more of importance to real Montanans currently.
This military veteran with the highest of credentials and a stellar resume has the background, the smarts, and the potential to be another great US Senator from Montana ... however, so far he has demonstrated only loyalty to the throne and displays the same political puppetry traits encumbering the rest of the Montana delegation.
I will acknowledge and applaud each of their stances and leadership regarding "public lands in public hands" ... but that's the extent of any applause for their positions and integrity.

You might watch this.

 

[Straight Arrow]

You might watch this.

Yes, interesting.

You might sum it up as many here may not care to invest over an hour into the interview.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Yes, interesting.

You might sum it up as many here may not care to invest over an hour into the interview.

Okay. Wonder when let me AI that for you will be the new let me google that for you . Anyway - heres what grok said. I did prompt it to include relevant things i remembered though. Its worth watching, with an open mind of course.

Summary below:

In a recent episode of The MeatEater Podcast (April 27, 2025), U.S. Senator Tim Sheehy discussed public lands and wildfires with host Steven Rinella, Ryan Callaghan, and Brody Henderson. Sheehy emphasized the importance of keeping Montana’s public lands accessible for hunting, fishing, and recreation while advocating for local management over federal control to improve efficiency. He highlighted his experience with Bridger Aerospace, his aerial firefighting company, to stress the need for better forest management to mitigate wildfire risks, criticizing bureaucratic delays in fire suppression.

Sheehy has collaborated extensively with Senator John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.) and others on bipartisan wildfire legislation. Notably, he co-sponsored the **Fix Our Forests Act** with Hickenlooper, Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), and John Curtis (R-Utah), introduced on April 14, 2025, to combat catastrophic wildfires, restore forest ecosystems, and streamline federal forest management. Additionally, Sheehy, Hickenlooper, Padilla, and Steve Daines (R-Mont.) introduced the **Wildfire Intelligence Collaboration and Coordination Act** on February 6, 2025, to establish a national Wildfire Intelligence Agency for improved coordination and data-sharing in wildfire response. Sheehy also partnered with Andy Kim (D-N.J.) on the **Wildfire Response and Preparedness Act of 2025**, introduced in March 2025, setting a 30-minute national wildfire response time standard. Furthermore, his **Aerial Firefighting Enforcement Act**, a bipartisan effort, passed the Senate in April 2025, reauthorizing the Department of Defense to sell excess aircraft for firefighting. Sheehy has introduced or co-sponsored ten wildfire-related bills since taking office, reflecting his focus on reform.[](https://www.tahoedailytribune.com/news/western-senators-introduce-bipartisan-fix-our-forests-act-to-combat-wildfires)[](https://www.yahoo.com/news/wildfires-ravaging-west-bipartisan-legislation-201605214.html)[](https://aerialfiremag.com/2025/02/07/legislation-introduced-to-establish-wildfire-intelligence-agency/)

Regarding committee assignments, while specific details are not fully outlined in the provided sources, Sheehy’s legislative focus on wildfires and public lands suggests involvement with committees related to natural resources, agriculture, or interior affairs, though exact assignments are not confirmed here. His background as an aerial firefighter and his legislative priorities align with committees overseeing federal land management and disaster response.

The podcast and legislative efforts underscore Sheehy’s commitment to bipartisan solutions, ensuring public lands remain in public hands and advocating for proactive wildfire policies to protect communities and ecosystems, particularly in Montana.

 

[Alpine01]

We're not talking serious math when it comes to the US Budget. Only complication is in Congress and the whining constituents who want services beyond what they are willing to pay for.

This is true. A large fraction of the US voters want free stuff from the Govt and our politicians (both sides) are more than willing to buy their votes.

Gross revenues - $4.92 Trillion

Mandatory expenditures (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Interest) - $4.13 Trillion

If we aren't willing to tackle 84% of the problem on the spending side, just raising revenue isn't going to solve the problem. Both issues need to be addressed.

It makes me laugh that DOGE is going to change the financial picture in a meaningful way. ...

Cut every dollar of discretionary spending, shut down all basic government services, and we are still adding more to the current $32-35 Trillion of net debt.

This is where you have lost me. Whether DOGE is doing it right or not is certainly open for debate. But if the USG isn't taking a hard look at how it spends the monies it already collects and can't demonstrate those funds are being used efficiently, it doesn't seem very smart to give them more. I don't for a second believe that SS, Medicare, and Medicaid are operating at 100% efficiency and are free of waste or fraud. If they were at 90% efficiency (which is a major stretch already), eliminating that other 10% would save the US taxpayer $400B plus. Seems worthwhile to me to pursue that kind of savings.

And somehow selling our public land is going to solve Congress' budget dereliction?

It won't. But your previous discussions around getting more revenue for the public land use we already allow should be a no-brainer to implement. But can it survive the whining constituents who don't want to pay higher beef, gasoline, or electricity prices, among several others?

To have $30+ Trillion in debt means that we, mostly my generation and older, have asked for $30+ Trillion of government services that we were unwilling to pay for. That's $30+ Trillion of wealth sitting on the balance sheets of older Americans that should have been used to pay for the services we demanded.

Again, this is where you have lost me. Pew Research has published several studies that show that currently it is the younger generations that are supporting larger USG spending. 66% for 18-29 yr olds, 55% for 30-49 yr olds. Boomers are the lowest group. And perhaps (likely) that is because they have already taken their piece of the pie and don't want to buy a bigger one in their ending years. I doubt they are unique in this perspective. But to say that only Boomers are asking for services they are unwilling to pay for is a stretch.

Boomers claim we have been such a hard working, prosperous, and industrious generation, which could be true, but one truism beyond any doubt is that we sure don't like to pay our own way. We've used the election and legislative process to force future generations to pay for our desired level of services.

I think this is partially true but doesn't capture the whole story. Again, this is my opinion only. But I take Obama-care as a great recent example. The ACA was built on the premise that younger, healthier people would predominantly pay into the system and that older generations (and less well-off groups) would get reduced-cost benefits. That mostly fits your Boomer narrative. But the ACA was pushed by one political party and was nearly universally endorsed by all age groups within that party. Politics trumped pocketbooks. And without trying to be too political, the view of the size/role of the USG in providing services has very much been a political one and not a generational one for decades and if you believe Pew, the divide grew from 2:1 (Dems/Cons) in the 70's and 80's to nearly 4:1 now.

The reality is, without revenue increases, we will never get out of this hole.

Agree. I am 100% in favor of raising revenues but not as the only means to get out of the debt hole. Spendong cuts have to happen as well. And that means to you have to tackle the big items. Saving a few billion here and there on the discretionary side won't achieve much but it's also low-hanging fruit.

There are 76 Million Boomers still alive. If you divide $30 Trillion of debt among those 76 million of us Boomers, we each benefited, on average, by $394,000 that we didn't pay to cover the services we demanded from our government.

I disagree. For the reasons stated above and for the fact that your statement can only be true in the realm of a non-progressive-tax structure.

Boomers are also not the only generation that has received or is now receiving/demanding US Government financial support and services. My view it is more political than generational. Just my $0.02 though.

 

[SAJ-99]

I don't for a second believe that SS, Medicare, and Medicaid are operating at 100% efficiency and are free of waste or fraud. If they were at 90% efficiency (which is a major stretch already), eliminating that other 10% would save the US taxpayer $400B plus. Seems worthwhile to me to pursue that kind of savings.

How do you define efficiency? Everyone seems to be using that word a lot but no one is defining it.

I agree we can't "tax our way to prosperity", but we can't "cut our way to prosperity" either. Everyone hates taxes so it is an easy target to get votes.

You can see below we created a revenue problem which is added to the expense problem. I picked 2017 because it was final year pre TCJA.

2017 Total US GDP $19.612T, federal tax revenue $3.32T, so 16.9%
2023 Total US GDP $27.726T, Federal tax revenue $4.44T, so 16.0%
(Note: FY 2024 revenues are not final as people file tax extensions which causes a long delay in finalizing that info.)
Simple math, and I can make it worse if I take out SS payroll taxes or breakdown revenue between Personal Income, Corp Income, and Capital gains. That revenue difference is adding $250B to the deficit. Remember the claims of "tax cuts will paying for themselves"? Clearly that didn't happen. Add in the cost of higher interest rates and the Medicare/Medicaid stuff and we have an unsustainable path.

Big Fin nails it nicely. The big stuff largely hasn't been touched, and the reason for that is because the House has elections every two years and a lot of new Republican voters are on medicaid. Oh, the irony. Politicans don't want to distract those voters from their streaming of WWE or MMA events to have them realize their checks are lower. Consequently, we aren't seeing real solutions. We are seeing the winners shove the stuff they want down the losers throats, mostly under the banner of "efficiency". Simply put, the rich get richer and the working poor get the bill. Amazingly, a good percentage of the poor continue to cheer the event.

 

[Alpine01]

Big Fin nails it nicely. The big stuff largely hasn't been touched, and the reason for that is because the House has elections every two years and a lot of new Republican voters are on medicaid. Oh, the irony. ... We are seeing the winners shove the stuff they want down the losers throats ...

Wow. That's rich. You think our debt problem and not touching entitlement spending is because of the last election of the House? Amazing. I think history tells another story however.

Since 1935, Democrats have controlled the House 32 out 56 Congresses. Republicans controlled the other 24 times.

The "third rail", namely entitlement spending started in 1935 with Social Security. Dems controlled that House by a 322 to 103 margin when SS was enacted. Medicare/Medicaid started in 1965. Dems controlled the House by a 295 to 140 margin when that was enacted.

Until 1995, the Dems controlled the House a total of 28 Congresses vs Republicans 12 and controlled the House uninterrupted from 1955 to 1995.

There was a major increase in unemployment entitlement spending as a result of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that was passed in 2010 coming out of the 2008 recession. Dems controlled the House from 2007 - 2011.

The ACA was passed in 2010. The Dems controlled the House that Congress (the 111th) by a 257 to 178 majority.

Entitlement spending exceeded National Defense starting in 1972 and has grown at a rate of nearly 5% since through 2008. National Defense spending has grown roughly 1.05% over that same period. During that timeframe, Dems controlled the House 13 times to Republicans 6.

Entitlement spending grew by $540B from 2008 - 2010 alone (nearly 32%) under Obama and the Dem controlled House.

You talk about Republican "winners" shoving stuff down the throats of the taxpayers? LoL.

 

[mtmiller]

You might watch this.

I had it on in the background while processing some pics. It was fine to hear about the fire stuff, but it was basically background noise

When he states that Nevada is 97% Federal Land and sage-grouse have caused ranchers to lose their grazing "rights", I take pause. While I agree there are some Federal lands that probably don't need to be in Federal ownership (his example of a closed ammo warehouse in the middle of a city), I don't agree with just giving that land to the state. It is a public asset that is worthy of trade for other lands or access.

I do like that he appears to be on the side of retaining Federal Lands.

 

[SAJ-99]

Wow. That's rich. You think our debt problem and not touching entitlement spending is because of the last election of the House?

Huh? I didn't say that.

 

[Straight Arrow]

I do like that he appears to be on the side of retaining Federal Lands.

Me too. Especially since early in his campaign he seemed to express opinion to the contrary. I am pretty confident that Sen. Daines and Congressman Zinke "schooled" him otherwise regarding the strong Montana attitude of Public Lands remaining in Public Hands.
It seems the first organization which caught his attention was PERC (Propery and Environmental Research Center) out of Bozeman. That outfit does develop some good ideas about conservation, but is primarily focused on private property rights and is somewhat "anti-government". Some of Sheehy's early remarks even reminded me of UPOM ideology.
His political campaign and speech later seemed to evolve to distancing himself from those attitudes.