Straight out of Atlas Shrugged or "There goes my livelihood!"

Posted by $ Flootus5 6 years, 7 months ago to Economics
14 comments | Share | Flag

The Secretary will disperse the share of non-Federal funds to each State and Tribe based on need.........

Holders of existing mining claims for these minerals could voluntarily convert their claims to leases..........
SOURCE URL: http://www.mining.com/hardrock-miners-hit-with-fees-in-blm-budget-97341/?utm_source=digest-en-cu-150203&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=digest


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by JoleneMartens1982 6 years, 7 months ago
    Wow, as I read Atlas Shrugged last month, and as I read this article, i couldn't help but feel like they have thrown out the constitution and just decided to follow all the wrong parts of the book.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 6 years, 7 months ago
    Good grief.

    Fortunately, this foolishness would have to get through Congress before it could be enacted. Unfortunately, there are plenty of fools in Congress.

    From the "America's Great Outdoors" section of the budget:

    · "will enable BLM to more aggressively develop partnerships". Just what we need – more aggression from the BLM.

    · "enhance the BLM capacity to preserve and protect the vast treasure of heritage resources on public lands, moving from a compliance-driven support program to one that is more capable of addressing large scale, cross-jurisdictional projects". What the hell does that mean?

    · "$10.0 million is also proposed to improve access to lands for recreational hunting...." What? Improve access to lands? Sure. Because that’s what they do, you know – improve access.

    From the "Management of Lands and Resources" section:

    · they intend to screw ranchers by "instituting a grazing administration fee" of $2.50 per animal unit month, on top of existing fees, of course.


    From "Land Acquisitions":

    · $93.4 million for "BLM Land Acquisitions". Because they need to control more of the nation.


    But the "Hardrock Mining Reform" section is a classic and a doozy:

    · “The second legislative proposal institutes a leasing process under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 for certain minerals – gold, silver, lead, zinc, copper, uranium and molybdenum – currently covered by the General Mining Law of 1872.”

    · "After enactment, mining for these metals on Federal lands will be governed by the new leasing process and subject to annual rental payments and a royalty of not less than five percent of gross proceeds." Yes, of course they call “public lands” “Federal lands”; no surprise there. And of course they want a royalty on gross, not net, because they expect people to be too stupid to understand the difference.

    · "Existing mining claims will be exempt from the change to a leasing system." Except, see the next two points.

    · "The proposal also increases the annual maintenance fees under the General Mining Law of 1872..." Well, wait a minute. Annual maintenance fees were never part of the General Mining Law of 1872. So they are admitting that there have been revisions to that grand old law, contrary to the anti’s who like to crow that it hasn’t been changed since the days of President Grant.

    · "Holders of existing mining claims for these minerals could voluntarily convert their claims to leases." So in other words, they will increase the annual claim maintenance fees so much that the annual lease payments seem lower, in order to entice fools to “voluntarily” convert. And those who do convert will have given up a right, in exchange for a lease agreement that can be altered at any time by a few politicians. Good luck hoping that the annual lease payments remain low. And good luck hoping that the royalty doesn’t increase – note that they propose “not less than five percent” – apparently the sky’s the limit.

    And one more major point. The proposal is only for certain minerals. Other locatable minerals – iron, platinum, diamonds, etc. etc. – would not be affected???? And notice in the last point, above, they refer to “mining claims for these minerals”. No, no, no. A mining claim is not specific to any particular named mineral. If you hold a mining claim, you hold a right to all locatable minerals on that claim. Let’s say you’re mining placer gold, and you encounter placer platinum – it’s yours. They don’t quite come out and say it, but they are trying to destroy that broad-based claim. A person would have to specify which mineral is being claimed or leased. And since the geniuses who write these proposals are, in fact, brilliant, I do not believe that this wording is a mistake or an oversight. Call me paranoid if you want, but this is deliberate.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Rocky_Road 6 years, 7 months ago
      " they intend to screw ranchers by "instituting a grazing administration fee" of $2.50 per animal unit month, on top of existing fees, of course."

      Beef is already at record highs, and losing ground to pork. We will be buying our beef from South America, and sending our dollars once again overseas.

      "One item worth noting is that the decline in U.S. inventory since 2008 – 3.1 million beef cows – has been met with an opposite expansion in Brazil of almost 4 million beef cows during the same period.

      From 1990 to 2009, while the U.S. cattle inventory declined by 5 percent, inventory increased in Brazil (by 33 percent), Uruguay (by 22 percent), and Paraguay (by 39 percent)."
      http://www.progressivecattle.com/topics/...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Zenphamy 6 years, 7 months ago
      Congress is only able to negate regulation, they don't get to approve it, with the exception of not funding which they don't exercise.

      "Help, the Paranoids are after me!"
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by GordonMuth 6 years, 7 months ago
    I think it might be time we sell off all these public lands and use the money to pay off the national debt.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Zenphamy 6 years, 7 months ago
      How and why would we sell of public lands that already belong to the states and their citizens?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ 6 years, 7 months ago
        This is a huge point, usually misunderstood due to a century plus of misinformation.

        The States can easily lay claim the to the public lands within their boundaries. When the Western States were admitted to Statehood, the feds were permitted to retain "ownership" as a special status of proprietorship (subject to the laws of the state like any other proprietor) with the mandate that they these lands be disposed of to the People or the States. Hence all the laws for centuries providing for homesteading, claim staking, timber and stone, grazing, etc. as means of privatization to individuals.

        I found a common High School civics textbook written by a Constitutional professor from Iowa that outlined how - when the Territory of Utah is admitted as a State - the federal government will be relieved of the burden of managing the public lands within the borders of the new State. The Civics textbook was dated 1894, two years before Utah statehood.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo