Federal Land Within the Southeast Bill

[CheeseWhiz]

I'm fairly sure that the intention of the resolution was well-known to everyone voting for it.

Maybe so, but it was not well-known to the Senate. I'm very possibly over-reacting here but the whole thing just looks... quite dishonest... to me. And I don't like that.
We should have been told exactly what land we would be giving up and that we would not be getting a penny in return.

All they're doing is asking if they can control over the land that's actually in the Southeast, the rest is up to the Senate.  What on earth is dishonest about that?

[CheeseWhiz]

I will not vote for this if this proposition does not include some sort of sale of the land to the regional government. Why should the federal government just give over this land to the regions? I think it would be unfair to the federal government not to be monetarily compensated for any land taken back by regional authorities.

Well, I can see what you mean, but the way I see it they are pretty much paying for it by taking the monetary load off of us.  Now, if we were making money off this land, then I would support them paying us, but all the land is doing is costing us money.

[CheeseWhiz]

I stand in firm opposition of this bill. As an historian, I can not allow our national birthright to be auctioned of to any region or any man. They are treasures which we all are entitled to.

As far as I can tell, they will be kept intact at a Regional level, they just want to look after their own land, that's all.

I will not vote for this if this proposition does not include some sort of sale of the land to the regional government. Why should the federal government just give over this land to the regions? I think it would be unfair to the federal government not to be monetarily compensated for any land taken back by regional authorities.

Well, I can see what you mean, but the way I see it they are pretty much paying for it by taking the monetary load off of us.  Now, if we were making money off this land, then I would support them paying us, but all the land is doing is costing us money.

Then why, pray tell, would the regions want this land anyway? What's in it for them except being able to control hunting rights in the Smokey Mountains or maintaining a few battlefields? What's wrong with the status quo?

This way, they can decide whether to up the amount they'll spend on X, or if Z is no longer needed and can/should be privatized.  Not saying they will do these things, they just want to have the say in what happens to their land.

[CheeseWhiz]

Okay, let me give an example:  There is currently a proposal in the Senate to privatize the Tennessee Valley Authority.  Whether or not it gets privatized will effect the Southeast people alone, yet they have no say in the matter beyond one Senator.  All they are asking is to be allowed to make those decisions themselves, instead of having a group of Senators, most of which won't be effected by what they're doing, decide for them.  With this bill, the Southeast gain control of their land, and we get rid of a monetary burden.

[CheeseWhiz]

Okay, let me give an example:  There is currently a proposal in the Senate to privatize the Tennessee Valley Authority.  Whether or not it gets privatized will effect the Southeast people alone, yet they have no say in the matter beyond one Senator.  All they are asking is to be allowed to make those decisions themselves, instead of having a group of Senators, most of which won't be effected by what they're doing, decide for them.  With this bill, the Southeast gain control of their land, and we get rid of a monetary burden.

The Federal Government built the Tenneessee Vally Authority so they have the right to privatize it if they want. Now if they didn't build it and the Southeast did than that's another story where I wouldn't support it.

I understand that, but they built it for the people of the Southeast, and what happens to it effects them, not us.  I think they should have the ultimate say in what happens to it and the rest of the Federal land within the Southeast.

The point is, if it stays at the Federal level, we have a group of Senators from all around the country deciding what to do with it, and they may or may not have the Southeast people's best interest at heart.  If we give it to the Regions, any privatization, and any increase or decrease in spending, would have to go through a popular vote, so it would be the people's interest.

[CheeseWhiz]

Since nobody can agree here can we get a vote on Colin's amendment?

First I would like to know what exactly you don't like about this bill.  People have had many different concerns, which I have tried to address, now if you could directly tell me those concerns, I think I could address them better.

Why I support this:
Because it allows the Southeastern people to decide what happens to the land, instead of a group of Senators who may or may not have the Southeast Region's best interest at heart.
Because it takes a monetary burden off the Federal Government.  This, however, is just an added bonus.
Because I support the Regions having more control over what happens in their land then the Feds.  In other words, this is (kinda) a Regional Rights issue for me (kinda.)