[XRdsRev]

It might be prudent to consider that the land the Federal government controls is actually capital in the form of real property. This Federally owned real property helps stabalize and guarantee the value of our currency and debt instruments to investors. Our currency is backed by the full faith and credit of our government. Some of that faith and credit is founded in the principle that our government has real assets which are worth $$$$$ insuring that we could not go broke. Our currency is no longer backed by gold, faith in the value of it now is based solely on the governments ability to back it up. Without large amounts of real assets, the only way to guarantee debt payments is through taxation and if public faith in currency fails, then taxation won't be worth a damn anyway.

Selling all or large portions of Federally owned land is a bad idea if having a stable currency and an ability to sell bonds etc. means anything to us. Land isn't the only factor that affects Federal solvency but it is a factor and shouldn't be
dealt with lightly.

[theBuckwheat]

>>
It might be prudent to consider that the land the Federal government controls is actually capital in the form of real property. This Federally owned real property helps stabilize and guarantee the value of our currency and debt instruments to investors.
<<

I am no unsympathetic to this view. However, please consider the economic issue here. What is more valuable, a tract of forest, managed to minimize the impact on Brown Bats, species of owls, and salamanders (some under orders by various federal courts), or land that is managed towards its economic potential of managed timber, mineral resources, eco-tourism, etc?

To put it in realworld terms, is the land that Disneyworld presently occupies in Florida more or less valuable and a contributor to the public and private economy than when it was undeveloped semi-swamp land?

Recall also that the government did not "develop" some of the most precious areas that are now parks. For example, the present Grand Teton National Park was created in part by a donation of 35,000 acres by John D. Rockefeller, Jr (whose wealth came from oil).

Having been there recently, I can attest to the price that postage-stamp sized building lots are fetching on the open market. It would not take selling very much of the fringe margins of that park that lay on public roads near existing developed areas to pay for quite a bit of rebuilding New Orleans.

As federal land, the local government cannot levy property taxes on it. As private land, it could be, that is unless it was purchased by a tax-advantaged entity such as the Sierra Club. Nevertheless, the federal gov't does not account for the value of any of these assets, nor is this value visible to foreign purchasers of US dollar assets. Indeed since government uses Cash Accounting, the Bureau of Land Management and the National Park Service are funded by borrowing or printing money- money that comes from the China central bank.

It is time to unlock the economic potential of a tiny portion of these assets. Leaving the locked up to be managed by people of the same mindset as the IRS, FEMA or the Post Office does not help our economy.