And yes, I was serious. This was one part that stood out:
Members of Congress from states without vast levels of federal land don’t want to subsidize us anymore. It’s important to note that, due in part to the large federal footprint in Idaho, more than a third of our state budget comes through federal sources.
I agree with that statement.
Yet, he is part of the problem that cuts revenue from Federal lands that are to be split with his state. He gives his pals and donors huge cuts on the fair market value that should be paid for resources taken from Federal lands.
If the Federal lands received fair market returns for the resources extracted, the share of state revenues (under the laws related to split revenue with local governments) would increase significantly and reduce the "subsidy" the Congressman is complaining about.
Just a few of the many examples where his coalition deprives local governments of their share of revenues, all for the purpose of subsidizing resource industries under the premise that if fair market rates were charged on Federal lands Americans would pay more for energy, minerals, resources, etc., causing one to ask - Who benefits from the subsidy of not charging market rates for resources on Federal lands.
- Hard rock mining royalties on Federal lands are 0%. Yup, a family paying the daily entrance fee to Yellowstone pays more to the US Government than the entire hard rock mining industry pays in a decade. If that royalty was raised to the equivalent private/state royalty rate, bilions would be split with state/local government.
- Grazing fees are less than 10% of market rates. They should be 10-20x higher, resulting in 10-20x increase in revenue splits to state/local government.
- Royalty rates for Oil and Gas were dropped under the Big Beautiful Bill, even though they were below private/state rates prior to that drop. That is a huge kick in the crotch to state and local governments.
- Oil & Gas does not have to operate with competitive leasing. No other values are considered, so they get leases for far below market rates. Imagine if conservation leasing was allowed for critical habitats on public land. Groups would pay far beyond what many O&G leases go for. These groups could also be charged the NPV of the royalty streams O & G would have paid, a number already calculate by Colorado State University. That would result in closer to "FMV" for these leases and would allow the market to determine what is the highest/best us of these Federal lands. It would increase revenues to be split with state/local governments.
One could make a list a few pages long of similar examples. All of which would have a split with state/local governments, reducing the subsidy he mentions as his excuse for getting rid of Federal land management.
Yet, he's one of contributors to the subsidy the problem. Every bill ever introduced to increase revenues on Federal lands to a rate closer to private or state lands gets defeated by the coalition he proudly claims to be a part of. And somehow voters fall for his excuse making, scapegoating, and dereliction of his duties to voters in his state.
Such is the Congress has perfected - Fail to manage Federal lands, then blame others for the problem you've created/ignored.
