Recent comments

That's right Ron, defense is discretionary - we really don't need it. (Sigh) Its only one of the designated powers of the constitution where as Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid (huge transfer payments which are only "mandatory" because they are mandated by Congress) have no Constitutional basis.

No, justin, I was mainly referring to the fuss over the word appropriated. Yours and Kurt's comments about proximity and state rule are very valid considerations. Without going back and re-reading all your comments, I think I agree with virtually all you've said above.

As someone else pointed out, when we speak of a national treasure, such as Everglades, it may be something else again. I have never, and probably never will visit Everglades. But because it is a national treasure, I think I should have some input into its fate. The same is true of the national treasures contained in Utah. Shouldn't such things as irreplaceable petroglyphs and prehistoric dwellings, sweeping and mostly untouched vistas and other precious attributes of Utah's already public lands be open to input from people like you or others who don't live within this state?

For that matter, in an increasingly global world, who is to say how close is "local?" Will we not all be diminished if places like Angkor Wat, or Chitzin Itza, the Great Pyramids, Antarctica, or Iceland's geyser fields are somehow destroyed? Will we not all lose something when the last African elephant or snow leopard is poached? LIkewise, won't citizens of Britain or Africa or even the most poverty stricken citizen of Bangladesh lose something if Yellowstone is destroyed by geothermal production in areas around it? In this world, exactly how local is local?

The real problem, as I see it, is the constant deliberate distortion of truth by so many people on so many sides. Whatever happened to honesty? What happens here in Utah is, I'm afraid, too common in other parts of the country. Very often the wishes of many -- perhaps even a majority -- of local residents are pushed aside by political bulldozers fueled by lots of money.

In every situation in which a national monument has been established by presidential proclamation, there had been mountains of public support that had been ignored to appease small but powerful groups of opponents who had dollar signs in their eyes. That was even true of Clinton's creation of Grand Staircase.

Thanks for another well considered post, Jim. It's very interesting to note that polls of Utah residents find at least a majority of citizens support the idea of a new national monument surrounding Canyonlands. Similar results have been seen in polls regarding protection of other public lands within the state. But our legislators and others who pack the power ignore that or even go so far as to accuse pollsters of dishonesty.

Twisting or ignoring facts seems to be a tactic that too many people accept and use as they try to gain advantages for whatever special agendas they are pushing. Much of the thread of this very discussion have fallen victim to that kind of thing. Look at how much effort has been wasted in playing word games here.

It would seem that much of this discussion has been "appropriated" for some unclear reason or perhaps to simply stroke an ego.

Diver.Sixx, another perspective on your comment about what is spent on defense and why we should lend the helping hands on SARs, well here is a try. Social Security, and Medicare take up a major faction of federal spending amounting to roughly 58% of the total federal outlays, whereas military spending is only about 18%. US news and World Report and other web-sites point this out. The problem with this representation is that Social Security and Medicare are parts of the mandatory spending of the federal government financed by the dedicated revenue raised from payroll taxes as imposed by FICA and through medicare payroll deductions and Income taxes. If we separate the above mandatory spending (its interesting to note this is now called entitlements when all of us pay into Social Security and Medicare, in my case for over 50 years now), but in any case if we look only at the discretionary spending appropriated by Congress on an annual basis, a different picture arises and then military spending equates to roughly 57% of the discretionary budget. When we compare that to the other world powers, only China comes close at 8.2%. Sources -Google, Federal Budget. many informative articles including the 2013 Federal budget.

ec asks, "I own my lands but I can't do anything I want without local or state approval. Why should that be different for Federal lands?"

Really now, ec :-)

But, since you asked, a good place to start would be on a site you should appreciate, The Heritage Guide to the Constitution. It offers a pretty good explanation about Article VI, otherwise known as the Supremacy Clause.

The commentary on that site points out, "In addition to serving a central role in preemption analysis, the Supremacy Clause is often seen as the source of the principle that states cannot regulate, interfere with, or control federal instrumentalities. This principle is generally traced to McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), in which the Court held that Maryland could not constitutionally tax the operations of the Bank of the United States."

It's funny how Rio Grande del Norte is in the district of Congressman Lujan but Congressman Pearce is the one sponsoring the bill calling for the local voices to be heard.

Great comment and illustrates something that happens too often. In Missouri for instance, the very state legislators who constantly crow about local control have repeatedly balked when local control did not go the way they wanted it to. I.e. pass state laws that override locally passed ordinances such as happened with the Arrow Rock State Park community when they wanted to keep giant CAFOs x miles away from the park.

Ec - I absolutely agree that an appropriate public review period is appropriate and valuable. My objection was to the provision in the bill for "state approval" prior to federal actions on federal lands. That's vastly different from "public review."