For Bush so Loved the Children He Wants to Sell our National Forests

A crazy idea

It's nuts to sell national forest lands to finance schoolsThe Bush administration has announced plans to sell off 307,000 acres of national forest across the country to pay for rural schools. There's a good word for that idea: Crazy.

The White House obviously hasn't listened to anything the state of North Carolina has said in years. Otherwise, administration officials might have heard that just before Gov. Jim Hunt went out of office in 2000, this state adopted an ambitious goal of conserving a million acres of land in 10 years. To date, the state has set aside a little more than 352,000 acres -- about one-third of its goal after nearly two-thirds of the time.

President Bush's plan would reverse some of this state's hard-fought gains. While a significant acreage of North Carolina (2.7 million acres) is held by local, state and federal governments, the president proposes to put up for sale nearly 10,000 acres in the Croatan, Nantahala, Pisgah and Uwharrie National Forests in this state. Those forests lie near the coast, in the Piedmont and in Western North Carolina. The administration also would sell 4,700 acres of the Francis Marion and Sumter National Forests in South Carolina. Justification? Some parcels are outside the boundaries of enclosed national forests.

Viewing such outparcels as expendable assets requires a constipated view of the value of conservation. Many people do not realize that the Uwharrie National Forest, for example, comprises a larger number of such parcels because it has been difficult and at times expensive to acquire privately held land for the forest. But many family farms and other rural enterprises have continued to thrive next door to those discrete, jigsaw-puzzle parcels of federal land.

President Bush has argued that selling the federal lands would help pay for rural schools, often near the forests that might be sold. But selling off assets is the wrong way to pay for government operations. If the president and his party were not such avid borrow-and-spenders bent on running up more record deficits, the administration would not be so strapped for education funds -- or so eager to sacrifice these national treasures. File this idea in the loony bin.

Originally posted by RANT
So where's that 'compassionate conservative' support for our President's plan?

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Where were you when Clinton gave our national parks and forests to the U.N.?
Glad to see you getting on board, but I wish you weren't late for the party!

Originally posted by Carseller4
Great idea! Less power for the Government, and more for its citizens. I see no problem with this.

Originally posted by Saphronia
You just gotta love the "Blame Clinton too crowd" they always give me a big LOL moment. Cause I'll be reading comment after comment just waiting for it and boom! there it is. Clinton did it too or something similar as if that justifies everything when actually it proves more than we know.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
Secondly I would like to appologize to everyone here at ATS and to the world, for i voted for this monkey in the last election. I still think he was a wiser choice then Kerry.

Originally posted by rizla


WHAT WERE YOU THINKING? Oh well, done now. Yeah, Kerry... What were they thinking? I wish Gore was awarded the election though. I mean, he did win it. We might have a viable energy policy by now The more I see of Gore, the more I like him now. I hope he runs.