05-30-2015, 09:11 PM
Remember when this came up during Governor Otter's first election? It didn't fly. Otter tested the waters on this and it turned out that something like 75% of Idaho voters were strongly opposed to the idea. Some official state study also said that it would be a big net loss and that the state would be losing around $100 mil a year if it had to fund the management and maintenance of the transferred lands, so the fiscal conservatives were against it. Otter stopped talking about it. But it has served as a rally point for Tea Party types and there are cynical politicians using the issue to drum money and votes from these suckers. I say suckers because the politicians using it as a plank in their platform know damn well that its unconstitutional and they know it won't happen but they throw it out there to rile up their base, fill their campaign coffers and, most of all, to prove they are farther to the right than any opponents standing for nomination.
For the record though, a primary reason why the feds have historically had to step into many areas of regulation is because states don't do a good job. It's too easy for a state governor or legislature to become politically captured by wealthy business interests who prefer a full on laissez faire style of economic environment. Business interests can force states to compete in a "bidding war" to see who's going to have the lowest common denominator of regulation and taxes. Sadly, states rights enthusiasts are longing for a return to a really brutal era because state legislatures have a long sordid record of failing their citizens. To wit: child labor laws, occupational safety, environmental protection, minimum educational standards, the right to vote, basic human rights, prohibition of slavery - there were states that decided these were unnecessary regulation and that is why the feds had to step into these areas. So if you trust legislatures that historically wouldn't protect basic human rights to protect public lands....you might want to rethink that
[signature]
For the record though, a primary reason why the feds have historically had to step into many areas of regulation is because states don't do a good job. It's too easy for a state governor or legislature to become politically captured by wealthy business interests who prefer a full on laissez faire style of economic environment. Business interests can force states to compete in a "bidding war" to see who's going to have the lowest common denominator of regulation and taxes. Sadly, states rights enthusiasts are longing for a return to a really brutal era because state legislatures have a long sordid record of failing their citizens. To wit: child labor laws, occupational safety, environmental protection, minimum educational standards, the right to vote, basic human rights, prohibition of slavery - there were states that decided these were unnecessary regulation and that is why the feds had to step into these areas. So if you trust legislatures that historically wouldn't protect basic human rights to protect public lands....you might want to rethink that
[signature]