Ron Paul and national/state parks

People seem to miss the major point of the great Ron Paul's message. MANAGE YOUR LIFE. You don't want it to happen? don't let it happen. Take part in your local government, and make sure it doesn't happen.

Dr. Paul is about empowering the people. It's a shame that people need a leader to tell them they are empowered.

reply to post by Xeven


Actually, we can afford to do a lot of things, if we choose to afford them.

"We choose not to raise revenue through tax increases or the elimination of tax loopholes."

That's akin to saying I choose not to take a higher paycheck because that would hurt my employer's bottom line. "Please, please pay me minimum wage...you need to create jobs!"
Ron Paul want to eliminate the Department of the Interior because it costs too much?! It also employs 71,000 people. Ron Paul wants to put 71,000 people on unemployment, which he would likely eliminate as well.

The Grand Canyon National Park and Yosemite are just big government getting in the way of private enterprise gaining access to much needed resources, in and around those areas.

Grand Canyon uranium mining battle heats up

A bill that would open 1 million acres near Grand Canyon National Park to new uranium mining was hailed Thursday as an economic boon...

"The Obama administration's effort to make 1 million acres of uranium-rich land in Arizona off-limits for future uranium mining is a step in precisely the wrong direction for the American economy," Rep. Trent Franks, R-Glendale, testified to a House Natural Resources subcommittee.

"Please, oh please, take my car to scrap it so you can create jobs!"

reply to post by CRDDD


This is one place that I admittedly disagree with Ron Paul. I don't trust the private industry to protect our parks and waterways. Ron Paul wants to sell that land back to private holders, and he wants to shrink the size of that Federal Agency.

I think he is wrong about that, but I still think he is the best candidate.

reply to post by CRDDD


Have we forgotten about some of the less than savory acts of the Department of the Interior and it's subsidiary agencies? For example here: The Mustang Conspiracy

The idea was to make sure this piece of "Americana" was protected from human encroachment and allowed to live free on the lands their ancestors roamed millions of years ago. Congress charged the U.S. Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management with the stewardship of both the land and the Mustangs. What we reveal in this interview shows not only that the Bureau failed horribly in that stewardship, but did so by colluding with big industry to destroy the very beings they were entrusted with protecting. The scandals are numerous and tawdry, the lies are plentiful and ludicrous, the attitudes are sadly predictable and the result is the wholesale destruction of the American people's culture and waste of the American people's treasure(read tax dollars) by their own servants.

or this: Interior's Mismanagement of Oil and Gas Resources Costing Taxpayers Billions

During this recent debate about the deficit and cutting programs that help regular people, it is important to keep in mind that not only are the oil companies receiving massive tax subsidies directly from the government, but, thanks to lack oversight and bad lease agreements, the federal government is likely getting a far smaller share of the domestic oil revenue than it should.

or this: Native American Trust Fund: Massive Mismanagement

When the U.S. government took control of Native Americans’ property rights in 1887, Indians were assured they would receive all the income from their land. They never did. According to accounts from whistle-blowers, money belonging to individual Indians was pilfered, skimmed, redirected, or thrown in with general government funds by the U.S. Department of the Interior or its appointed representatives. In 1996 banker Elouise Cobell filed a class action lawsuit charging the government mismanaged more than $100 billion in oil, timber, grazing and other royalties on land owned by some 500,000 individual Indian beneficiaries.

Let's not act as if the Department of the Interior are some kind of saviors of the environment. All they do is pimp out the land to big Corporations and pretend like it's good for us. I'm sure there's more going on that we don't yet know about. I'm not saying that there is nothing good about the Department of the Interior, but what I am saying is that they are too big for their own good. If individual states had control over their own public land, there would be more oversight and less of a chance of nationwide corruption. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's the way I see it.

This is the one agency I really don't like seeing eliminated either. But to denounce the best presidential candidate that's come along since Kennedy for personal feelings on one issue?

But anyway the Dept. of Interior has had it problems over the years. Haven't had time to go over this as much as I'd like, but from Wiki, it seems like politics as usual for another federal agency...one that has many sub-agencies.

Secretary of the Interior James G. Watt—already facing criticism related to his alleged hostility to environmentalism and his support of the development and use of federal lands by foresting, ranching, and other commercial interests, and for banning The Beach Boys from playing a 1983 Independence Day concert on the National Mall out of concerns of attracting "an undesirable element"—resigned abruptly after a September 21, 1983, speech in which he said about his staff: "I have a black, a woman, two Jews and a cripple. And we have talent. Within weeks of making this statement, Watt submitted his resignation letter.

Under the Administration of U.S. President George W. Bush, the Interior Department's maintenance backlog climbed from $5 billion to $8.7 billion, despite Bush's campaign pledges to eliminate it completely. Of the agency under Bush's leadership, Interior Department Inspector General Earl Devaney has cited a "culture of fear" and of "ethical failure." Devaney has also said, "Simply stated, short of a crime, anything goes at the highest levels of the Department of Interior.”

Gale Norton, Interior Secretary under George W. Bush from 2001–2006, resigned due to connections with the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal. Julie A. MacDonald, deputy assistant secretary at the Interior Department appointed by Norton in 2002, also resigned after an internal review found that she had violated federal rules by giving government documents to lobbyists for industry.[5][6] On July 20, 2007, MacDonald's "inappropriate influence" led H. Dale Hall, director of the US Fish and Wildlife Service, to order a review of eight endangered species decisions in which the former deputy assistant secretary was involved. Hall has called MacDonald's disputed decisions "a blemish on the scientific integrity of the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Department of the Interior."[7] On 17 September 2008, the US Fish and Wildlife Service proposed to more than triple the habitat of the California red-legged frog, citing political manipulation by Julie MacDonald.[8] In a government report released in December 2008,[9] Inspector General Devaney called MacDonald's management "abrupt and abrasive, if not abusive,"[10] and U.S. Senator Ron Wyden, who commissioned the report, attributed the "untold waste of hundreds of thousands of taxpayers' dollars" to MacDonald's actions.[11]

On September 10, 2008, Inspector General Devaney found wrongdoing by a dozen current and former employees of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, then known as the Minerals Management Service. In a cover memo, Devaney wrote “A culture of ethical failure” pervades the agency. According to the report, eight officials accepted gifts from energy companies whose value exceeded limits set by ethics rules — including golf, ski, and paintball outings; meals; drinks; and tickets to a Toby Keith concert, a Houston Texans football game, and a Colorado Rockies baseball game. The investigation also concluded that several of the officials “frequently consumed alcohol at industry functions, had used coc aine and marijuana, and had sexual relationships with oil and gas company representatives.” According to the New York Times, "The reports portray a dysfunctional organization that has been riddled with conflicts of interest, unprofessional behavior and a free-for-all atmosphere for much of the Bush administration’s watch."

On December 16, 2008, the Center for Biological Diversity sued the Interior Department under Kempthorne for introducing "regulations...that would eviscerate our nation’s most successful wildlife law by exempting thousands of federal activities, including those that generate greenhouse gases, from review under the Endangered Species Act." According to the CBD, Kempthorne's regulations violated the Endagered Species Act, "did not go through the required public review process" and "were rushed by the Bush administration through an abbreviated process" with "environmental impacts were analyzed in a short and cursory environmental assessment, rather than a fuller environmental impact statement."[23]

Wiki

Now again, I'm on a fence with this dept. I would personally rather see a re-vamp but we have a lot more important issues that face this country imo. If we don't fix them, you might not even have the freedom to hike in those parks.

Peace

What seems to be missing from this discussion is the realization that ownership of the National Parks by the US Government does not equal ownership of mineral rights in the National Parks by the US Government,

Mineral rights, as in ownership of minerals and specified resources within the ground, are commonly owned by someone other than the owner of the property. In the private sector, sale of the mineral rights is a pretty common happenstance and usually carries with it restrictions on things like how close drilling or mining can be to dwellings or other buildings. The Department of the Interior does not own all the mineral rights under National Parks, and therefore cannot prevent mining or drilling by the mineral rights owners.

They can prevent logging, but speaking as someone who actually owns and cares for nearly 100 acres of forested land, some controlled logging is actually a good thing. Trees which reach maturity become brittle and easily damaged by winds, and trees which die off become fodder for forest fires. The ultimate solution is controlled logging which removes older trees to allow for smaller trees to grow and replenish the area, preventing damage to surrounding trees when a mature tree falls or when it becomes fodder for uncontrolled fires. I actually log this place, cutting out trees which are dying or which have become mature and in danger of falling so fresh growth can take place. The result is that this place looks the same as it did 50 years ago, and provides resources to me in return for its care.

I remember not very long ago when it was discovered that a majority of wildfires could be traced to a lack of logging. Luckily, cooler heads prevailed against those who would have allowed entire states to burn for their ignorance, and controlled logging was not only allowed, but encouraged.

Not to mention the logging that already takes place in National Parks serves to keep the supply of lumber high enough to stabilize lumber prices. Stable lumber prices mean more affordable housing and more jobs in the construction industry, two things that are in short supply right now.

So the claim that removing the Department of the Interior would directly cause an increase in mining or drilling is false, and the concern over logging activities is based on an extremely poor understanding of how nature operates.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck


Excellent post and I thank you for the knowledge. Makes a lot of sense.
Forest fires are natures way of balance. As long as we do it correctly, we help keep the balance, prevent forest fires and add to the economy! How cool is that?

reply to post by maddog99

When man makes something, it is produced in limited quantities and carries a price tag; when nature makes something, it is produced in unlimited quantities and is free.

When man makes something, it requires continual regular maintenance by people; when nature makes something, it is self-sustaining and maintenance-free.

When man cleans up after himself, the result is called a landfill and is a nasty, smelly, unsafe place that no one wants to visit; when nature cleans up after itself, we call the result a beach and flock there in droves.

I always find it inconceivable how people can try and attribute man-made characteristics (limited resources, dependent on humanity) to natural resources. It seems an insult to nature in my eyes.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by CRDDD

Originally posted by ipleadthe5th
reply to post by CRDDD

 

please show some proof..

Many twist Ron Pauls words to suit their agenda..

Often it's a case of him wanting power taken off the Fed and given back to the states where it belongs..

A simple google of "ron paul department of the interior" will give you all the proof you need. Oh, and you should also read up on the general Libertarian stance on the environment.

I find it funny that as soon as someone criticizes something about glorious Ron Paul, his cronies immediately start screaming "PROOF!11"

edit on 8-11-2011 by CRDDD because: (no reason given)

I find it funny when someone starts a thread without proof. You know it's going to be asked for. Why don't you save some electrons and provide it with your opening thread?

/TOA