U.S. moves to terminate leases on public lands.

[toast2266]

I mainly ride Park City and deadfall and trimming is taken care by a non-profit, thankfully.

Where do they get their money? A huge chunk of the money our non-profit uses to fund trail work comes from federal grants, that appear to be done.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

[BCMtnHound]

Too late for this year, but perhaps your state parks & recreation can try something similar to the BC Parks license plate program. $50 to purchase, then $40/yr renewal on top of the annual license fee, which goes to Parks to fund programs. Pretty good success here after decades of cuts at the political level.
https://nrs.objectstore.gov.bc.ca/ku...10d909554f.pdf

[muted reborn]

Good point, the majority of money comes from donations (I thought it was all from donations) but they get grants too I just read. Id guess a lot of those grants is to build new trails on all the private land they manage. Overall I think it will be fine, it just may take more time to clear all the trails and people like me will have to step up their donations to keep all 7 trail crew workers hired. I'm sure in next months newsletter they will tell us how funding may change and the consequences. If any.

Hope Im right, Im guessing here.

[toast2266]

The forest service budget for 2025 put in place in 2024 was a HALF BILLION less than needed or requested.

Apparently supplemental FS funding from through Inflation Reduction Act and Infrastructure Investment Act has also run out in 2024.

The forest service cuts have been coming for a while. And while it sucks, what the hell can we do about it in a government that has been overspending for the past 40+ years with trillions in debt? Pay to play in the forest, like Millcreek and American Fork canyons in Utah, charging for season passes? There's no money, where's it going to come from? Who's going to pay for it?

Roughly 60% of the forest service budget is for wildland firefighting. That's a bit over $5 Billion.

Current estimates for the cost of the recent fires in Southern California are sitting somewhere around $30 Billion.

It's a fairly safe assumption that there will be more large and economically costly wildfires in the future. It doesn't make economic sense to cut forest service funding. And given that both you and I live in areas that are most definitely at risk from wildfires, I would also personally prefer that my house doesn't burn down.

And I can make the same economic argument for recreation. Public lands are an economic driver. If the lands aren't managed and maintained, those economies whither. If the goal is to balance the federal budget, throwing bombs at the domestic recreation industry isn't a particularly good way to increase tax receipts.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

[Trackhead]

I’m not arguing any of your points, Toast. I like my public lands, campgrounds, toilets, trails as much as anyone.

But these budgets have been busted for a long time, before Trump. Like BCMtnhoubd suggests, we need to pay to play. This has occurred with increasing frequency across many districts with more user fees. Perhaps it’s better than a broad tax because the end user is paying? Keep the money paid in the district?

Trail grooming for snowmobiles is in part funded from user fees. Many many mtn bike and trail building organizations don’t rely on government grants, rather public donations and labor. We pay to play on forest service ski hills.

I don’t know what the answer is. But like it or not, the fed government is fucked financially and from every efficiency aspect ever conceived. There’s no money, the budget was voted on I think Dec. 20th.

[toast2266]

I’m not arguing any of your points, Toast. I like my public lands, campgrounds, toilets, trails as much as anyone.

But these budgets have been busted for a long time, before Trump. Like BCMtnhoubd suggests, we need to pay to play. This has occurred with increasing frequency across many districts with more user fees. Perhaps it’s better than a broad tax because the end user is paying? Keep the money paid in the district?

The entirety of the forest service's $9 billion budget represents .001% of the federal budget. (I'm not saying that for dramatic effect. That's the actual percentage).

The people they're firing are the lowest paid employees. Trail crew, seasonal workers, etc. Firing those people will make approximately zero difference in the forest service budget and is comically useless in terms of reducing the broader federal budget.

They're not fixing anything. They're just ruining people's lives.


Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

[Trackhead]

Yup. Agreed.

I don’t know the answer to this, but does the president have the power to increase the budget of the FS to keep those employees on staff, or is he obligated to “try” to meet the budget by making cuts?

However, a long line of legal scholars, officials and judges from both major political parties — including Brett Kavanaugh, who was appointed by Trump to the Supreme Court — has rejected the idea that the president has a constitutional power to ignore spending laws. They say that the Constitution clearly gives Congress the power of the purse and that this includes the power to tell the executive branch how much — and how little — to spend on things

"Since the Founding, Congress's power of the purse has been understood to establish a ceiling on Executive spending, not a floor," they write. "Until the Presidency of Richard Nixon, it was overwhelmingly understood that the power of the purse restricted only the President's ability to spend more than an appropriation — it was not understood to prohibit the President from spending less than an appropriation."

Quotes from article:
https://www.kpbs.org/news/politics/2...er-impoundment

[singlesline]

I'm gonna make so much money dealing with the aftermath of all the uncontained wildfires that will rip through the country after a couple of years of neglect...so I can just buy a new house if mine burns down, right?

[civilcoconut]

Yup. Agreed. I don’t know the answer to this, but does the president have the power to increase the budget of the FS to keep those employees on staff, or is he obligated to “try” to meet the budget by making cuts? However, a long line of legal scholars, officials and judges from both major political parties — including Brett Kavanaugh, who was appointed by Trump to the Supreme Court — has rejected the idea that the president has a constitutional power to ignore spending laws. They say that the Constitution clearly gives Congress the power of the purse and that this includes the power to tell the executive branch how much — and how little — to spend on things "Since the Founding, Congress's power of the purse has been understood to establish a ceiling on Executive spending, not a floor," they write. "Until the Presidency of Richard Nixon, it was overwhelmingly understood that the power of the purse restricted only the President's ability to spend more than an appropriation — it was not understood to prohibit the President from spending less than an appropriation." Quotes from article: https://www.kpbs.org/news/politics/2...er-impoundment

They don't care. They are directing agencies to prepare reductions in force that will be implemented and complete by the end of September 2025. The direction is to start with the essential employees who are kept on during a government shut down, which is not much. No biologists, no front desk staff, etc would be included in this. Terminations could start as early as 60-90 days from now. This is happening irrespective of the approved budget or workload planned for the agency's. This approach is going to be applied across the government and you are going to experience a massive reduction in service and see a large increase in federal employee unemployment and the knock on economic effects in the next 6 months. These orders are publically available on OPMs website. There will be no one to spend the appropriated dollars. Selling assets is just massively dumb. If we want to leverage our natural resources to address our debt, fine, but selling the asset to the rich is just so incredibly short sighted. In theory they shouldn't really be able to just mass sell federal land, but not much has stopped them so far. Let's be honest though, if anyone in DC was worried about the debt they wouldn't be passing the budgets they are proposing to pass.

Most of this order is likely aimed at building leases and disposing of federal real estate. They don't need the buildings because they are going to lay off a large chunk of the federal workforce and consolidate federal offices into new locations from what I understand. This work has already started with lease terminations already beginning.

[SDW]

The USFS and BLM have been “disposing” of public lands since they started managing them. This executive order doesn’t change that. Both agencies regularly get budget cuts under the administrations of both parties. And there were already mass firings initiated before Trump took office. At least this time around people are taking notice.

[Trackhead]

Ultimately, the big question to ask is making an attempt at reducing the debt something worth pursuing?

Certainly a question better suited for another part of this forum.

[shroom]

do we have an economists subforum?

[old goat]

Don't worry about trail building and maintenance. Trump will have to restore the CCC pretty soon. After all, the 1930's were the golden age of trail building.I'm tired of hearing how we're overspending. You'd be hard pressed to find many government programs that doesn't serve a useful, if not essential purpose. Skimping would make sense if we were a poor country but we're not. We're a very rich country, even if most of the people aren't. We are seriously undertaxed--look at marginal tax rates in the 50's and 60's, when the economy was doing well, entrepreneurs started businesses that made stuff instead of moving money around and skimming some off the top. The rich were rich back then, maybe not Elon Mush rich, but rich enough. The government's job is not to help the rich get richer, it's to help everyone else. If it doesn't we will wind up with my grandfather's kind of government--you know, the kind that lines capitalists up against a wall and shoots them.

[bodywhomper]

Is firing the federal workforce down to only “essential” workers the solution? That was the term used in the cabinet meeting. “Essential” workforce is the term that’s used when the government “shuts down.” What’s the intent in the mass firings?

What’s the % of the Fed budget dedicated to the workforce? When was the last mass layoff of federal employees (real question, I didn’t look it up)? Contractors cost more. I am a contractor and I see what my staff and I make and what the gov pays for our time….

Speaking of fire, federal wildfire capacity has a ultrafucked. Others here can talk about this better then me, but my understanding is that even if the firings at USFS/BLM are reversed, we’re already in a hole and point of debt in trainings and hiring as because of time delays.

Also, worth pointing out that generally, the best bang for the buck is for $$ spent on wildlife mitigation and forest health rather than on fire suppression.

I have friends at USFS and I professionally work with or adjacent to USFS. They have no idea what’s going on or what’s going to happen next. Randy (administrator) just left for retirement. The newest administrator is out of the timber industry. What’s the mean? Who knows.

The core NEPA implementing regulations are being vacated. The sale, transfer, or leasing of federal lands are “federal actions” requiring compliance with NEPA. I have asked friends in the Gov that are environmental officers what it means moving forward with government activity once the CEQ NEPA regs are vacated in a month (there’s a public comment period). Consistent responses have been, IDK, and frankly, I’m more concerned about whether I’ll have a job in 2 days or have no coworkers in 2 days or be mandated to fire my staff tomorrow morning. I have my thoughts re:NEPA, but….

Also, in CA, multiple 2/14 firings were made of staff at the wildlife agencies that focus on compliance with the endangered species act. What that means is that many projects or activities in the planning phase will grind to a halt or drastically slow down.

[MagnificentUnicorn]

Last major downsizing of the Federal Government was during the Clinton administration

[civilcoconut]

Ultimately, the big question to ask is making an attempt at reducing the debt something worth pursuing? Certainly a question better suited for another part of this forum.

Yes. What is happening currently is not a serious attempt to reduce the debt or deficit. Selling an asset does not solve the debt issue unless you address the annual deficit issue, which is not being done.
However I would argue that selling public lands enjoyed by millions that offers intangible ecosytem benefits to industry may solve near term balance sheet issues will only actually exacerbate the long term problem. I also believe that the preference by some for the government to divest it's public land holdings is primarily driven by ideology, not as a solution to budget issues (this is self evident if you look at the budget proposals from the people who want to divest the land holdings). A better long term strategy would be to revise our environmental laws and regulations to achieve a better balance when it comes to resource development and resource protection so that we have a long term asset held by the government that produces value. If these lands are sold as some wish, it's likely that the public will lose access, especially if the land is held privately.

Private forest owners generally do not allow the public access in my experience. All my commentary above ignores the fact that most federal land holdings like BLM/USFS are producing value, some or much of it intangible benefits to society at large. It's just that some people think it is bad that they can't monetize it for their own personal bank account balances.

[Bunion 2020]

Originally Posted by Trackhead View Post Ultimately, the big question to ask is making an attempt at reducing the debt something worth pursuing? Certainly a question better suited for another part of this forum.

My final post in the thread until it gets moved. Yes debt and deficit reduction is a crucial and worthy goal. Nothing so far that has been proposed by the R Congress or the Trump admin has fuck all to do with that goal.

Summary: We estimate that incorporating the Trump administration’s major tax proposals into the FY2025 House budget reconciliation would require that the provisions mostly sunset by December 31, 2033. Even so, primary deficits would increase by $5.1 trillion before economic effects and by $4.9 trillion after modest, positive economic effects. Both primary deficit estimates are larger than the cap of $2.8 trillion allowed in budget reconciliation. High-income households gain the most while lower-income households gain less or even lose, depending on how the spending cuts are distributed. https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.ed...posals-effects

[subtle plague]

do we have an economists subforum?

Yes. But it's mainly used by Barron de jong and multiverse discussing arbitraryness.

Gesendet von meinem Pixel 9 Pro mit Tapatalk

[Trackhead]

I wonder if anyone read the entire executive order? It’s pretty clear the determination of selling off assets found to be “no longer needed” is left up to the agency, not DOGE.

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the disposition of Government-owned real property which has been deemed by the agency as no longer needed.

[Trackhead]

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/w...-more-quickly/

These aren’t just anecdotes. The federal government’s property management problem is both longstanding and significant. Getting rid of unused and underutilized property is a particularly big problem, as was underscored at a Senate hearing this past week. The Government Accountability Office has had the GSA portfolio on its “high risk” list since 2003, a designation indicating vulnerability to “fraud, waste, abuse and mismanagement.”

This is NOT new. There are endless examples prior to Trump.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[toast2266]

This is NOT new. There are endless examples prior to Trump.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Doing it in a matter of weeks with approximately zero review or oversight by Congress is most definitely new.

Clinton did it to (mostly) good effect. It was a lengthy, in depth review that was ultimately passed by Congress with large bipartisan support. Compared to this, which is letting the richest man in the world run rampant without any guardrails oversight, or regard for conflicts of interest.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

[civilcoconut]

Probably not a lot of historical examples of terminating leases for building currently occupied by staff with no plan for where they will be working.

[old goat]

There's not a lot of historical examples for anything Trumpmusk is doing. Precedent is meaningless now. Law is meaningless too as the administration is openly defying it without consequence.

[Trackhead]

Reduce the footprint initiative per Obama 2015. The wording is very similar to Trump.

https://obamaadministration.archives...%20efficiently.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Trackhead]

Summary: In 2013, the Administration issued the Freeze the Footprint (FTF) policy to freeze the Federal Government’s real estate footprint and restrict the growth of excess or underutilized properties. Freeze the Footprint was the first government-wide policy that established and required federal agencies to identify offsets (i.e., disposals) of existing property to support new property acquisitions, and that set a timeline for agencies to freeze their real property footprint. The policy was a success.

Pretty similar…..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk