FOR SALE: 640 Million Acres

Remember that guy Cliven Bundy?  A few years ago he made headlines by protesting grazing fees on federally owned land in Nevada.  He hasn’t paid them for over 20 years.  The Bureau of Land Management, armed with a court order, showed up to evict his cattle.  He stood in front of the gates, armed with his personal firearms, accompanied by armed supporters, and challenged the Feds to a gunfight.  And, he won the day.  The government backed down.

The standoff over federal grazing fees

He was a conservative hero for a few days until his racist remarks had his political advocates distancing themselves from him.

But, here’s the thing.  He shouldn’t have been a conservative hero.  He should have been a liberal hero.

But, I am getting ahead of myself.

My last post (Let’s understand just what socialism means to us) excoriated democratic socialist Bernie Sanders and, by extension, his supporters and those who advocate his beliefs.  One reader called it a rant.  After rereading it, I had to admit he was right and apologized.  Another accused me of contributing to the demise of civil discourse.  Another mea culpa!

Notably, no one refuted the core of my argument – that capitalism is superior to socialism or even democratic socialism. 

Then I got an email from a friend on the left coast.  It included a link to a New York Times op-ed piece titled “Socialism, American Style”.  The article promotes the idea that state government ownership of real property serves the interests of conservative politicians.  How?  Charging fees for its use raises revenue and enables state governments to reduce taxes.  The authors provide examples of socialist enterprises in conservatively governed states including Alaska, Texas, Nebraska, Wyoming and Tennessee.

Like most punditry masquerading as analysis, the column gets the facts right but ignores alternatives that don’t fit the author’s bias.  What alternatives, you ask.

When commenting on fiscal matters, conservatives are fond of making analogies to household budgets or running a business. 

How’s this for an analogy?

If a business doesn’t generate enough revenue to cover its expenses – the equivalent to governments running a budget deficit – they often sell assets to raise cash.  The federal government owns over 640 Million acres of land or 28% of the area of the United States. 

So, here’s my challenge to conservatives and to conservative politicians, if any are listening:

            SELL THE LAND!

If you believe that private enterprise is the surest path to American prosperity, sell the land.  Private owners will convert it to its highest and best use.  It will generate more personal income for its investors.  They will reinvest it; they will spend it; and, it will boost economic growth.  If you believe in supply side economics, you should expect to generate more tax revenue without raising tax rates if the property is converted to a more economically productive purpose. 

The Federal land is estimated to be worth about $128Trillion.  The practice is most prevalent in the 11 adjacent states that constitute the American west, where the federal government owns 47% of the land. 

Sure, some of it houses military bases and government buildings.  But, most of it – including 85% of the land in Cliven Bundy’s home state – is wilderness.  We could pay off the federal debt with proceeds from the sale of only 15% of it.

Much of it is grazing land of the type that old Cliven, the conservative hero, was using to feed his cattle.  What would happen to that land if it were sold to a private owner?  No one can be sure.  Maybe the new owners would build condos or a health spa and resort.  Maybe they would grow genetically modified corn and feed the world’s hungry with cheaply grown food.

But, if that were to happen, Cliven would be out of business.  What would he do?  Lead a march on Washington?  After all, his government benefits will have been cut.  Aren’t we concerned about social outcomes?

The Wildlife News made this point succinctly, referring to him as “a freeloading, welfare rancher who has an inflated sense of entitlement.”

Like I said, Cliven should be liberal hero.

WHO WILL LEAD?

Let's understand just what socialism means to us

I need to get this off my chest: I'm both upset and amazed that a wacko like Donald Trump is polling second to a mainstream candidate like Jeb Bush in the race for the Republican nomination for President. I'm equally upset and amazed that a wacko like Bernie Sanders is polling second to a mainstream candidate like Hillary Clinton in the Democratic race.

The difference between the two relates to discipline.  Trump says whatever is on his mind with no concern for the repercussions.  (I won’t bother to recount his comments as they are well covered by the press.) 

Sanders, on the other hand, has so far delivered his thoughts with a lot of “message discipline”. 

Sanders is not a Democrat.  First elected to Congress in 1990 and as Vermont’s Junior U.S. Senator in 2006, he has been an Independent who caucuses with Democrats.  He is a self-declared “democratic socialist”. 

We know what the ‘democratic’ part of this definition means.  It means that, unlike the dictatorship that governed the socialist system of the Soviet Union, the electorate chooses its government.  However, I wonder if we know what a socialist is. 

Socialism is an economic system whereby the government owns the means of production.  Citizens lose the right to private property.  Investors (if there are any left) do not have the right to a return on their capital.

Anyone who thinks that socialism would be preferable to free-market capitalism is either ignorant or stupid.  And yet, Sen. Sanders is gaining traction.  What’s happening to the United States?  Have we lost our bearings? 

What we once described as the “profit motive” has been recast as “corporate greed”.  Greed, as we all know, is one of the seven deadly sins.  So, we have redefined something with enormous positive effects as something that is sinful.  

Capitalism and the profit motive have driven innovation from the 1690s, when the invention of the steam engine and steel plows made farms more productive, to the1870s, when the invention of both the automobile engine and distribution of electricity began an era of rapidly improving lifestyles, to the 1990s when the Internet boom created an interconnected world.

The result of all this innovation…

Poverty has been reduced to one fifth of what it was in 1900.  Child labor has been reduced by half since 2000.  Number of hours worked per worker has been reduced by one third since the 19th Century.  Infant mortality is half of what it was in 1990. The store of nuclear weapons has been reduced fivefold since the end of the Cold War. Carbon emissions have been flat for the last four years. (Yes, government regulation played an important role in these improvements.)

All this is the result of innovation driven by free-market capitalism. It would not have happened if we lived in a socialist system.

As for those who contend that capitalism exploits workers, I offer this:  Other things being equal – culture, geography, education, etc. – workers always thrive in a capitalist system where socialism fails to deliver.  Think of North and South Korea, Taiwan and Mainland China, or East and West Germany.

To be clear, it is the free enterprise, capitalist system that has led to a better life for Americans.  In its absence, you wouldn't have time to play with your kids or enjoy a glass of wine with your friends on Saturday night; you wouldn't be able to access the Internet from an electronic device in your pocket; and, you wouldn't be living in a climate controlled home.  You would be working hard and not reaping the benefits.  The benefit of your labor would go to the government.

Free-market capitalism is the surest path to prosperity. To describe it as corporate greed is doing all of us a disservice.  To consider voting for a socialist is the height of folly.

WHO WILL LEAD?