shoots-straight
Well-known member
We need to beat this back so bad Lee gets hemorrhoids so severe that he can't poop without a transfusion. Then it would be nice to get protections for our public lands added to the Constitution.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That will never happen. Remember that “permanent” funding of LWCF? I believe this bill money still diverts that funding to repaving parking lots and emptying toilets for the NPS because it doesn’t have the money anymore. The only consolation is every time I hear “makes x permanent” I can laugh. Nothing is permanent.We need to beat this back so bad Lee gets hemorrhoids so severe that he can't poop without a transfusion. Then it would be nice to get protections for our public lands added to the Constitution.
Sounds like it’s time to vote for her opposition.She also wont let you ask her questions verbally in a TOWN HALL MEETING. Per her new SOP, questions have to be presubmitted and if she doesn't like them, just throws them in the trash can next to her.
Absolutely. Keep the pressure on until it's dead.Let’s not get sidetracked with other things going on in the world right now. Keep the pressure on our lawmakers. Call, email, tell your friends.
So much of what Mike Lee and his defenders are putting out are straight up, lies based on the verbiage of the bill and what could happen.This is John Johnson. He is a member of the Utah legislature in the Senate and is the first local law maker to attempt to defend the bill. It is important in this moment to beat this back at every front. He represents district 3 in the state. That encompasses parts of Ogden, Morgan, Coalville and a few other areas. Regardless of whether he is your state Senator, it’s important he hears from all of us to let him know we won’t tolerate the sell of our public lands.
View attachment 375670
Senator Johnson’s contact information here:
Phone: 385-272-7428
Email: [email protected]
Please be sure to contact him and let him know that Lee’s amendment does not have the support of Utahn’s.
It’s time every politician hears the message loud and clear in this state.
Utah is the hot bed for this, and it’s time to apply the pressure as hard as possible. It’s time to end this.
Give him a call or send him an email. Most lawmakers in the state local and national are keeping pretty quiet right now. Let’s show some real backlash to the one who decided to stick his neck out.
So much of what Mike Lee and his defenders are putting out are straight up, lies based on the verbiage of the bill and what could happen.
Quick 10 min podcast drop?I am submitting a rebuttal to the Wall Street Journal article where their Editorial Board wrote of their support for Senator Lee's markup in the Senate Energy & Natural Resource Committee. I've been a WSJ reader for 35 years (currently a digital subscriber) and most of the time they are fiscal conservatives, as are most of us CPAs.
Yet, when you read the entire bill, you see Lee is handing out treats to his biggest donors by lowering royalty rates for oil and gas, for coal, and continue to exempt hard rock miners from any royalty at all. Not sure how the continuous circle of "giveaways in exchange for political donations" squares with fiscally conservative principles.
And how does Lee propose offsetting all of that? By liquidating valuable land assets that another of his large donor groups, real estate industry, a group who has been asking for this plumb since I've been involved in these issues.
And it is not just Federal dollars he is leaving on the table. The Federal revenues collected from royalties have a 25%-50% split with local government. So, he gives away local government revenues to keep his donors happy, forcing locals to either cough up more taxes to cover the difference or to accept far lower levels of services.
It was very surprising that the WSJ Editorial Board, a group of very smart economists and financial minds, could be spoon fed in such a way. They know better, but they also want to keep their good standing with that side of the aisle. So, when Mike Lee calls in some favors, they oblige, even if their integrity takes a direct hit in the minds of the non-partisans.
I doubt the WSJ will run a rebuttal from a dude in Montana. They probably don't want to be undressed for their laziness of likely not even reading the bill to cipher what a welfare giveaway it is to Lee's largest donors.
You make some very good points here.I am submitting a rebuttal to the Wall Street Journal article where their Editorial Board wrote of their support for Senator Lee's markup in the Senate Energy & Natural Resource Committee. I've been a WSJ reader for 35 years (currently a digital subscriber) and most of the time they are fiscal conservatives, as are most of us CPAs.
Yet, when you read the entire bill, you see Lee is handing out treats to his biggest donors by lowering royalty rates for oil and gas, for coal, and continue to exempt hard rock miners from any royalty at all. Not sure how the continuous circle of "giveaways in exchange for political donations" squares with fiscally conservative principles.
And how does Lee propose offsetting all of that? By liquidating valuable land assets that another of his large donor groups, real estate industry, a group who has been asking for this plumb since I've been involved in these issues.
And it is not just Federal dollars he is leaving on the table. The Federal revenues collected from royalties have a 25%-50% split with local government. So, he gives away local government revenues to keep his donors happy, forcing locals to either cough up more taxes to cover the difference or to accept far lower levels of services.
It was very surprising that the WSJ Editorial Board, a group of very smart economists and financial minds, could be spoon fed in such a way. They know better, but they also want to keep their good standing with that side of the aisle. So, when Mike Lee calls in some favors, they oblige, even if their integrity takes a direct hit in the minds of the non-partisans.
I doubt the WSJ will run a rebuttal from a dude in Montana. They probably don't want to be undressed for their laziness of likely not even reading the bill to cipher what a welfare giveaway it is to Lee's largest donors.
Hey just an fyi that phone number is John’s personal phone number. I did have 25 minute conversation with him where we exchanged ideas back and forth. He was polite and I think I did sway him on the fact that this is a political loser for young republicans. However I think the only viable solution is that I am going to have to get into politics myself.This is John Johnson. He is a member of the Utah legislature in the Senate and is the first local law maker to attempt to defend the bill. It is important in this moment to beat this back at every front. He represents district 3 in the state. That encompasses parts of Ogden, Morgan, Coalville and a few other areas. Regardless of whether he is your state Senator, it’s important he hears from all of us to let him know we won’t tolerate the sell of our public lands.
View attachment 375670
Senator Johnson’s contact information here:
Phone: 385-272-7428
Email: [email protected]
Please be sure to contact him and let him know that Lee’s amendment does not have the support of Utahn’s.
It’s time every politician hears the message loud and clear in this state.
Utah is the hot bed for this, and it’s time to apply the pressure as hard as possible. It’s time to end this.
Give him a call or send him an email. Most lawmakers in the state local and national are keeping pretty quiet right now. Let’s show some real backlash to the one who decided to stick his neck out.
Thanks, hugely! Eyes on the prize.I am submitting a rebuttal to the Wall Street Journal article where their Editorial Board wrote of their support for Senator Lee's markup in the Senate Energy & Natural Resource Committee. I've been a WSJ reader for 35 years (currently a digital subscriber) and most of the time they are fiscal conservatives, as are most of us CPAs.
Yet, when you read the entire bill, you see Lee is handing out treats to his biggest donors by lowering royalty rates for oil and gas, for coal, and continue to exempt hard rock miners from any royalty at all. Not sure how the continuous circle of "giveaways in exchange for political donations" squares with fiscally conservative principles.
And how does Lee propose offsetting all of that? By liquidating valuable land assets that another of his large donor groups, real estate industry, a group who has been asking for this plumb since I've been involved in these issues.
And it is not just Federal dollars he is leaving on the table. The Federal revenues collected from royalties have a 25%-50% split with local government. So, he gives away local government revenues to keep his donors happy, forcing locals to either cough up more taxes to cover the difference or to accept far lower levels of services.
It was very surprising that the WSJ Editorial Board, a group of very smart economists and financial minds, could be spoon fed in such a way. They know better, but they also want to keep their good standing with that side of the aisle. So, when Mike Lee calls in some favors, they oblige, even if their integrity takes a direct hit in the minds of the non-partisans.
I doubt the WSJ will run a rebuttal from a dude in Montana. They probably don't want to be undressed for their laziness of likely not even reading the bill to cipher what a welfare giveaway it is to Lee's largest donors.
Thank you, Randy. Please share the rebuttal. If the WSJ won’t publish, there are plenty of other ways to get the text in front of people who need to know what’s going on and the logical alternatives available to generate the same revenue.I am submitting a rebuttal to the Wall Street Journal article where their Editorial Board wrote of their support for Senator Lee's markup in the Senate Energy & Natural Resource Committee. I've been a WSJ reader for 35 years (currently a digital subscriber) and most of the time they are fiscal conservatives, as are most of us CPAs.
Yet, when you read the entire bill, you see Lee is handing out treats to his biggest donors by lowering royalty rates for oil and gas, for coal, and continue to exempt hard rock miners from any royalty at all. Not sure how the continuous circle of "giveaways in exchange for political donations" squares with fiscally conservative principles.
And how does Lee propose offsetting all of that? By liquidating valuable land assets that another of his large donor groups, real estate industry, a group who has been asking for this plumb since I've been involved in these issues.
And it is not just Federal dollars he is leaving on the table. The Federal revenues collected from royalties have a 25%-50% split with local government. So, he gives away local government revenues to keep his donors happy, forcing locals to either cough up more taxes to cover the difference or to accept far lower levels of services.
It was very surprising that the WSJ Editorial Board, a group of very smart economists and financial minds, could be spoon fed in such a way. They know better, but they also want to keep their good standing with that side of the aisle. So, when Mike Lee calls in some favors, they oblige, even if their integrity takes a direct hit in the minds of the non-partisans.
I doubt the WSJ will run a rebuttal from a dude in Montana. They probably don't want to be undressed for their laziness of likely not even reading the bill to cipher what a welfare giveaway it is to Lee's largest donors.