White house proposes to sell public lands

This one just struck me on a deep level, I guess I am a tree-huger. The white house has proposed to sell of public lands to pay for schools and roads in rural areas hit with economic hard-ship when logging companies were forced out due to government regulations and sometimes, I am sure, left on their own.

"Basically, they're selling the foundation to pay for the mortgage," said Eric Antebi, spokesman for the Sierra Club. "These lands really belong to future generations and shouldn't be sold to the highest bidder. There's no reason why the world's biggest economic power needs to sell parkland to make ends meet."

But then is it really all that bad?

"The lands we identified today are isolated and expensive to manage," said Mark Rey, undersecretary of agriculture in a Friday news conference in Washington, D.C. "In some places, they are part of Forest Service ownership more as an accident of history."

So the amount of the land is not much, only 0.16% of the total 190 million acres, and the stuff they are selling, if you trust Mark Rey, is not that valued. But the same math done with the money they want to get from the selloff compared to the money going to finance the military? The money they want to generate is 800 million, the amount for the military (this year) is 440 billion (thats 440,000 billion). So the USDA Forest Service is looking to make 0.18% of the budget for the military? Why is the United States in this situation and acting this way? The United States is the global superpower and needs to sell off 0.16% of its public lands to generate (in a few years) 0.18% of its expense for war (in one year). The leaders of the United States should remember they only have the luxury of having actual public land to sell is because of the foresight of previous leaders. And I agree Eric Antebi, these lands "really belong to future generations".

Seattle Times
USDA Forest Services