Downsize Government

Taxation is Theft

Archive for January, 2025

After Heated Debate, Wyoming House OKs Bill Limiting Private Property Sales To Feds

Jan 20

Posted by admin in Agenda 30/30, Government Overreach | No Comments

By: Leo Wolfson – January 20, 2025

State Reps. Karlee Provenzea, D-Laramie, and Ken Pedergraft, R-Sheridan, were part of a spirited debate over private property rights on the floor of the Wyoming House at the Capitol in Cheyenne on Jan. 20, 2025. (Matt Idler for Cowboy State Daily)

One of the most popular political topics in Wyoming is private property rights and how far, or not, they should extend.

On Monday, that topic took center stage in the Wyoming House over a discussion on a bill that would require the sale of all private property to the federal government in Wyoming be matched with a corresponding decrease in federal land. 

House Bill 118 would mark a significant change for those wanting to sell their land for recreation or other purposes to the federal government, and likely limit most of these transactions moving forward. 

The crux of Monday’s debate came down to whether it’s most important to prioritize blocking growth of federal government land or retaining private property owners’ rights to sell their land to the government as they desire. Blocking the growth of federal land won out, which is the main purpose of HB 118.

The bill sponsor, Rep. Dalton Banks, R-Cowley, said just because federal land transfers have been accepted throughout Wyoming’s statehood doesn’t make it right. He also said his bill protects property owners from federal overreach and sweeping government mandates.

“We’re not limiting who you can sell to, we are limiting the federal government under our Constitutional responsibility by our act of admission that we’re limiting their right to purchase,” Banks said.

The House rejected by a 34-25 vote Monday an amendment brought by Rep. Karlee Provenza, D-Laramie, that would have removed the private property owners’ aspect of the bill while retaining the ban on selling state land without a corresponding trade-off with federal land.

“This limits just compensation,” Provenza said. “This means that, potentially, the greatest buyer who wants to spend their money here can’t buy that property from that private property owner.”

The bill advanced on second reading and will be considered one more time before it’s sent to the Senate.

Stopping Federal Growth vs. Private Property

There have been a few private and state land sales in Wyoming over the last few years that have drawn criticism from some for adding to the acreage that the federal government owns.

The most recent example is the Kelly Parcel that was finalized at the end of last year, which conveyed 640 acres of pristine state land in Teton County to the National Park Service for $100 million for the land to be incorporated into Grand Teton National Park.

Another prime example was the 2023 sale of the 35,670-acre Marton Ranch in Natrona County, private property that was sold for $21 million to the BLM.

“Those people that sold that — it’s their land, it’s their right,” Rep. Steve Harshman, R-Casper, said of the Marton sale. “To infringe on private property rights, it gives me pause.” 

Jess Johnson, government affairs director for the Wyoming Wildlife Federation, told Cowboy State Daily the Marton sale was critical in providing continuous public hunting and fishing access. She said other land transfers can be beneficial for agricultural interests by preventing land from being sold to make residential subdivisions.

She also pointed out that her organization supported the Marton Ranch sale being opened up to a public comment period even though they already supported the sale. This happened after the state of Wyoming filed an appeal of the sale, which required the agency to seek public comment and complete an additional environmental review.

“Because the process matters,” Johnson explained. “That is there as a stopgap. It’s not willy-nilly sales. There are approval steps the government has to go through.”

Babysitting Or State Sovereignty? 

Rep. Tony Locke, R-Casper, said he sees the issue as a matter of protecting Wyoming’s sovereignty as a state. Rep. Tom Kelly, R-Sheridan, agreed, saying that nothing precludes the federal government from pressuring private landowners to sell their land.

Rep. Mike Yin, D-Jackson, disagreed and compared the bill to “babysitting” on part of the state government, while Rep. Cody Wylie, R-Rock Springs, described it as “a cloth we don’t need to be cutting.”

Others who spoke in support of Provenza’s amendment expressed a desire for private property owners to have the final say in what happens to their land rather than the federal government.

“I believe every individual has the right to develop his potential, to use and enjoy his own property, tangible or intellectual, and pursue his own interests, free from restrictions or arbitrary force,” said Rep. J.T. Larson, R-Rock Springs.

Rhetoric against the federal government was sharp Monday from those who support Banks’ bill, with some going as far as comparing the government to an adversarial foreign nation.

“We could have a real debate about adversarial, and I think the federal government could definitely be linked in there,” said Rep. Reuben Tarver, R-Gillette.

Rep. Rob Geringer, R-Cheyenne, brought up the example of a piece of contaminated land owned by the city of Cheyenne west of the city that neighboring private landowners have been unable to get help in cleaning up from various public entities. 

“I could see selling it to the federal government to help with,” Geringer said. 

Rep. John Bear, R-Gillette, pointed out that for any purchase made by the federal government, the money comes from taxpayers.

“Actually taking opportunity away from private citizens who paid into the government’s coffers,” he said. “If you want to protect private citizen’s ability to make these types of transactions, we should limit the ability of the federal government to come in and to make these purchases.”

Constitutional Arguments

Both the Wyoming and U.S. constitutions state that private property shall not be taken or damaged for public or private use without just compensation. The U.S. Supreme Court has also said that property rights are necessary to preserve freedom by allowing property owners to plan their destiny on an individual basis.

“You have said here this morning, members, some of you have argued that the government knows better on who you should sell your land to,” Provenza said. “That’s a dangerous slippery slope isn’t it? The government knows better. I argue the government doesn’t know better here.”

But under the Wyoming Acts of Admission when it gained statehood, Wyoming was “admitted into the union on an equal footing with the original states in all respects whatever; and that the Constitution which the people of Wyoming have formed for themselves be, and the same is hereby, accepted, ratified and confirmed.”

“This is the ability of the state of Wyoming to have jurisdiction over all the lands within our borders,” Banks said.

The U.S. Constitution also limits what types of property the federal government can purchase, which Rep. Ken Pedergraft, R-Sheridan, believes it has far exceeded.

“At some point we the people need to stand up,” he said. “Yes, you are a private citizen, you can sell to whomever you want, but the federal government doesn’t have the right to buy any more land.”

Leo Wolfson can be reached at leo@cowboystatedaily.com.

Tags: ,

The World’s Biggest Landlord Is Washington

Jan 14

Posted by admin in Agenda 30/30, Government Overreach | No Comments

Selling off some of the government’s holdings would ease fiscal stress and help the economy.

By: Thomas Sowell, Wall Street Journal

The incoming Trump administration will confront some huge financial challenges. It will have to cope with the vast increase in the national debt created by the Biden administration’s reckless spending. It will also need to maintain the solvency of the Social Security system after decades of financial irresponsibility by politicians of both parties.

On top of all this, there is an urgent need to build up American military defenses, which have been neglected while taxpayers’ money has been lavishly spent on such things as subsidizing electric cars and paying hotel expenses for illegal immigrants.

There is no question that doing all the things that urgently need doing will require huge amounts of additional government spending. The key question is: Where will the government get this money?

There is much to be said for the new administration’s plan to have a nongovernmental organization investigate how well, or how badly, government agencies are currently handling the taxpayers’ money. But there is a limit to how much money can be recovered by simply cutting back on “waste, fraud and abuse” in federal spending.

There are, however, additional billions of dollars that could be tapped, from a source that not many people think about. That is the vast—almost unbelievable—amount of land owned by the federal government. Some of that land—such as military bases—is used to house the government’s own operations. But the great majority of that land is not.

The rest of this government-owned land is so vast that there is little to compare it with—except whole countries. And not small countries like Belgium or Portugal. The amount of land owned by the National Park Service alone is larger than Italy. The land owned by the Fish and Wildlife Service is larger than Germany. The land owned by the Forest Service is larger than Britain and Spain combined. The land owned by the Bureau of Land Management is larger than Japan, North Korea, South Korea and the Philippines combined.

The idea of selling huge amounts of government-owned land is not new. Before the federal income tax was created in the early 20th century, land sales were sometimes a significant source of federal government income in the preceding two centuries. The prospect of large-scale land sales was considered during the Reagan administration, but the political opposition was too strong.

As of 2015, government-owned lands were valued at $1.8 trillion by the Commerce Department. This is the kind of money that can make a real contribution to the government’s fiscal balance, at a time when so many government operations are urgently in need of support.

As for the current value of these lands to the government, that value is largely negative. The money that these lands bring in is often only a fraction of what it costs the government to take care of them. Wildfires on land managed by the federal government have been about five times the size of wildfires on “non-federal lands,” according to a 2022 study by the Congressional Budget Office.

Land transferred from federal ownership to the market economy can also contribute to more affordable housing. When the same kind of house costs several times more in one part of the country than elsewhere, it is often because the cost of the land is higher rather than because the house costs more to build. That in turn is often because the land is either more scarce or because of laws restricting the building of anything on that land. But, where more land is available to build on, the same kind of house can cost a fraction of what it costs elsewhere.

The federal government owns a little more than one-fourth of the total land area of the United States. The time is long overdue to consider whether that is the best economic arrangement. And reconsideration is especially needed at a time of urgent fiscal problems.

Mr. Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.

The Federal Plan to Monetize Sunlight, Bee Pollination, and Photosynthesis on Your Land

Jan 9

Posted by admin in Agenda 30/30, Government Overreach, Green Agenda | No Comments

https://www.theepochtimes.com/epochtv/the-federal-plan-to-monetize-sunlight-bee-pollination-and-photosynthesis-on-your-land-facts-matter-5787722?utm_source=Goodevening&src_src=Goodevening&utm_campaign=gv-2025-01-08&src_cmp=gv-2025-01-08&utm_medium=email&est=AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAZeM5eh8z2c

On a previous episode, we went into some great depth exposing the 30 by 30 agenda. Also known as the “America the Beautiful” program, it was a plan to place 30 percent of America’s land under conservation by the year 2030—essentially locking up a lot of America’s real estate for ostensibly environmental reasons.

One avenue through which the federal government was attempting to do this was to have the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) create an entirely new class of assets called natural asset companies.

This move would have created a new class of company that would then allow investors to purchase the rights to millions of acres of public federal lands, as well as private lands under easement contracts.

Essentially, it would have turned much of the natural resources (such as air, sunlight, and photosynthesis) on America’s land into a tradable stock, open to all investors—including our geopolitical adversaries.

Furthermore, the creation of these “natural asset companies” would have effectively locked up these lands, making it illegal for any entity to conduct any type of financially motivated activity on those lands—such as mining, drilling, farming, ranching, grazing, hunting, fishing, harvesting timber, and so on.

It would essentially take American land out of useful economic production.

And the cherry on top of all of this was the fact that the SEC’s planned rule change seemed to go under the radar—with very little fanfare and with a very short public comment period.

However, it was Margaret Byfield and her organization, the American Stewards of Liberty, who spearheaded the effort to kill this rule before it went into effect.

But while the SEC rule was canned, the idea of locking up U.S. land has morphed into something called “natural capital accounts,” which are now being created to quantify nature’s value and list those values as new assets of the federal government.

We had a chance to sit down and speak with Byfield about what this all means for the average U.S. citizen, as well as her efforts to fight back against what she calls encroachments on our liberty.

Join host Roman Balmakov on this week’s episode of “Facts Matter.”

Views expressed in this video are opinions of the host and guests and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.