Newest US Senate Land Sale Amendment

[shoots-straight]

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.

 

[SAJ-99]

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.

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.

 

[grizzly_]

FIRE MIKE LEE

www.firemikelee.com

 

[VMHunter]

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.

Sounds like it’s time to vote for her opposition.

 

[Southern Elk]

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.

 

[quarterhorse]

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.

Absolutely. Keep the pressure on until it's dead.

Also understand it will resurface again somewhere else as it always does. Maybe if we can apply enough pressure they'll leave it alone for a few years.

 

[Oneye]

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.

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.

 

[Nameless Range]

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.

 

[Treeshark]

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.

You’re right, but opponents of this haven’t had any trouble getting a bit fast and loose with the truth as well.

I’m certainly not above a bit of gamesmanship in the name of victory, but let’s be consistent.

 

[Big Fin]

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.

 

[cgasner1]

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.

Quick 10 min podcast drop?

 

[peterk1234]

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.

 

[OverlordBear]

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.

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.

 

[Big Fin]

Lee is now looking for the pressure relief valve. This group is his only option; a group from Utah.



Had a call last night with a very well connected person on the right. The summary of the conversation - "We warned them this was going to be a shitstorm. Now, they believe us." He told me that word among his people is that Lee is looking for a path to move on.

I hope the entire mess gets tossed. We've all got much better things to do.

 

[elkduds]

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.

Thanks, hugely! Eyes on the prize.

 

[smarandr]

"This is not going to pass. This is not going to pass. I can give you a whole list of things to lie in bed at night and worry about. Don't put this on that list," Risch said, referring to the number of Idahoans expressing misgivings about Lee's proposal.

https://localnews8.com/news/2025/06...-of-public-lands-at-idaho-gop-summer-meeting/

 

[smarandr]

The older I get the more jaded I become. However, getting Senator Risch to take a public stand like that gives me hope that if we the people scream loud enough our voices can be heard.

 

[TOGIE]

You know it’s gone “viral” when your mom is sending you public lands action alerts…

 

[Pilgrim]

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.

 

[Nameless Range]

Do not trust this man. Just two days ago he said no state should be more than 2% public lands.