Set aside the (quite proper) arguments that the Federal Government should not lay claim to the land of the States for a moment.
I was unexpectedly on the highway Friday. Rather than a day on Capitol Hill as scheduled, I ended up in Delaware. I am always freshly reminded during road trips of the vast open spaces that remain in our great nation.
Consider if the Federal Government were to sell off tracts of land. What if they were to liquidate and permit families to have acres in return for the money owed for Entitlement programs. Move some people off the Entitlement roles as a means of reducing Entitlement spending with the goal of ending Entitlements completely, in return give these folks land. How many families would jump at a chance for modern Homesteading?
Would you take five acres of remote land and make a go of it? Green energy, composting toilets, satellite communications, all make living off the grid far more comfortable and realistic than in our frontier days. Think of the boon to the economy, as well diggers and builders and all of the related industries are contracted to help new landowners make their little pieces of America habitable.
Think of the pressure that would be reduced on metropolitan governments as the populations reduce with a proportional decrease in services required. Think of the cash infusion (or savings, depending upon the structure of the deal) for the Federal Government.
Think of the empowerment of those families who will now have a stake in the republic as they had not before. Think of the value to the people who will learn once again the importance and self respect afforded by self-sufficiency.
There are so many ways to unleash the power of the American people, if only we change our politics.
...by any means necessary.
Sam
III
I do understand what you're saying. A leg up, so to speak.
ReplyDeleteState vs. Federal land-based arguments aside, as long as all are given equal access to the opportunity to purchase land, I'd be all for it. Giving it away though, giving preference to those already receiving what has been taken from me?
You said:
"What if they were to liquidate and permit families to have acres in return for the money owed for Entitlement programs"
People on entitlement programs are not owed anything. Nothing. They receive, but are not owed.
Many people would love to homestead. Many more would not.
I wouldn't mind some sort of further privatization of land, but only on a fair and equitable basis that is not based on income. Make it cheap, sure. But make it just as cheap for the person making $150k as it is for the person living on welfare and entitlements. Otherwise, aren't we back to re-distributing?
I'd drop my decent-paying job in a heartbeat to homestead.
Like AP in a heartbeat! Unattainable dream at the moment.
ReplyDeleteChina
III
Well, people on Entitlement programs, in many cases, are owed...consider the 50 year old lady who has paid in her entire life and is due payments of the money she put in, at the very least. If we play fair, she is entitled to interest, as well. Give her 5 acres in return for her investment and future payments.
ReplyDeleteFor the folks who are on foodstamps, different equation: Maybe they pay the Government (or the state in which the land exists) fair market value over 30 years, just like a mortgage, in return for no more handouts, since the program is closing.
There will be a fail rate, as with anything. There'd also be a success rate, that beats the status quo.
There are many options.
Sam
III
I think you're right, there are many options available.
ReplyDeleteWhile those of us who have paid into the system are "owed", we need to someday face the fact that the money is gone. Our politicians have stolen it. Stolen it. It's not there. Social Security is all but another under-funded liability that is pushing us into disaster.
I would gladly give up the seventeen years' payments I have made into the system to just drop it. I know that's not a pleasant scenario, but one way or the other, the present course is unsustainable.
So, you're right. While SS is owed to many, the means by which to continue repayments is gone. We're broke. It's unsustainable.
/End rant./
As I write this, the idea of giving those people land instead makes more sense, since the money is not there to sustain entitlements.
I think the biggest catch to this idea is that many will be unable to survive the rigors of such a life, many more will be unwilling to.
AP