Washington Is the World's Largest Landowner. Can Federal Land Sales Erase the National Debt?

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Washington Is the World's Largest Landowner. Can Federal Land Sales Erase the National Debt?
By Ward Clark | 2:10 PM on December 26, 2024

The United States federal government is one of, if not the, largest debtors on the planet, currently holding $36 trillion in debt. That's a "T" followed by a "rillion."

The United States federal government is also one of, if not the, largest landowner on the planet, currently holding over 615 million acres through various agencies, like the Bureau of Land Management, the Forest Service, various national parks and monuments, and so on.

Thomas Sowell, economist, economic philosopher, commentator, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, professor of economics at several major universities, and one of the smartest people on the planet, has proposed a way that one of these things can be used to help address the other.

In short: Sales of federal land could be used to pay down the debt.

There is much to be said for the new administration’s plan to have a nongovernmental organization investigate how well, or how badly, government agencies are currently handling the taxpayers’ money. But there is a limit to how much money can be recovered by simply cutting back on “waste, fraud and abuse” in federal spending.

There are, however, additional billions of dollars that could be tapped, from a source that not many people think about. That is the vast—almost unbelievable—amount of land owned by the federal government. Some of that land—such as military bases—is used to house the government’s own operations. But the great majority of that land is not.

We aren't talking a few hundred acres, either. The Western states in particular include a lot of federal lands. Nevada is 80 percent federal land. Utah, 63 percent, Idaho, 62 percent, and Alaska (amazingly) is in 4th place, with 60.9 percent - although we have far and away the greatest total amount, with over 222 million acres held by the federal government; that's about a third of the total amount of federal landholdings.
https://redstate.com/wardclark/2024/12/26/washington-is-the-worlds-largest-landowner-can-federal-land-sales-erase-the-national-debt-n2183628

[Hoodat]

Washington Is the World's Largest Landowner. Can Federal Land Sales Erase the National Debt?

1.  The Federal Government does not own $36 trillion in land

2.  There isn't $36 trillion of money out there lining up to buy anything the government has to sell.

3.  Even if the total debt magically disappeared today, we're still spending $2 trillion more each year than we are taking in.  No amount of debt resolution will work if we are unwilling to balance our budget.

[roamer_1]

 

I am torn on this issue...

As a Western man, I am the indisputable recipient of a certain largess - I have the benefit of giant tracts of land that I am free to walk upon. Sure there are places I can't go - private lands in ranches and timber sales that by eastern standards are huge in themselves, but in the light of those federal and state lands, almost merely a drop in the bucket.

By and large, I can go where I want, and camp where I want... Take from the land as I see fit, at least in some degree... And that degree includes an ability toward real subsistence, which is the point:

I don't find that to be the case elsewhere if you omit crown lands in Canada. Most places cannot sustain one such as I, the land all cut up and fenced off, and waterways blocked by land rights...

It is a malady I find in my Eastern and Southern friends - They are excited to obtain permission to hut a tiny plot of land, because otherwise they cannot hunt at all. Terribly limited fishing access. A friend of mine in Michigan that is in the black powder crowd, a trapper and woods oriented enthusiast that loves to live a life that I take for granted that he cannot obtain... All driven by private property owning everything.

I step outside myself, normally abhorred by government mismanagement and exerted authority... gating off access, preventing the gathering of firewood that will otherwise burn the forest down... Preventing fair use of the land with machinery.

But as much as I detest that authority, I must recognize That I would never have had the ability to walk this big magnificent land - To be able to live free - Had it all been bought up a century past.

That treasure far exceeds whatever monetary value that land might obtain.

[bilo]

1.  The Federal Government does not own $36 trillion in land

2.  There isn't $36 trillion of money out there lining up to buy anything the government has to sell.

3.  Even if the total debt magically disappeared today, we're still spending $2 trillion more each year than we are taking in.  No amount of debt resolution will work if we are unwilling to balance our budget.

Selling off some of the land the federal govt owns makes sense. Applying that money to paying off some of the debt makes sense. Another avenue to debt reduction would be to place a royalty on all oil and natural gas produced in the USA.

However, eliminating the deficit of $2 trillion plus per year is going to be a much heavier lift since apprx. 76% of the budget is non-discretionary spending. We need to have GDP grow faster than govt spending and to eliminate a lot of govt agencies. It's going to be a terrible tough lift. I can see how tarriffs, lower taxes and higher legal employment can lift revenues, but spending is the tough issue.

[MeganC]

The banking cartels do not want the US to pay off the debt.

Period.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

I am torn on this issue...

As a Western man, I am the indisputable recipient of a certain largess - I have the benefit of giant tracts of land that I am free to walk upon. Sure there are places I can't go - private lands in ranches and timber sales that by eastern standards are huge in themselves, but in the light of those federal and state lands, almost merely a drop in the bucket.

By and large, I can go where I want, and camp where I want... Take from the land as I see fit, at least in some degree... And that degree includes an ability toward real subsistence, which is the point:

I don't find that to be the case elsewhere if you omit crown lands in Canada. Most places cannot sustain one such as I, the land all cut up and fenced off, and waterways blocked by land rights...

It is a malady I find in my Eastern and Southern friends - They are excited to obtain permission to hut a tiny plot of land, because otherwise they cannot hunt at all. Terribly limited fishing access. A friend of mine in Michigan that is in the black powder crowd, a trapper and woods oriented enthusiast that loves to live a life that I take for granted that he cannot obtain... All driven by private property owning everything.

I step outside myself, normally abhorred by government mismanagement and exerted authority... gating off access, preventing the gathering of firewood that will otherwise burn the forest down... Preventing fair use of the land with machinery.

But as much as I detest that authority, I must recognize That I would never have had the ability to walk this big magnificent land - To be able to live free - Had it all been bought up a century past.

That treasure far exceeds whatever monetary value that land might obtain.

I consider myself "libertarianish" because I support a lot of individual rights but IMO there is a place for public ownership of land: parks, town squares, libraries, etc. Things that, IMO, the government actually does well or even better than the free market. Of course, there is the case for private owners donating their land to a trust under the guise that it never even get developed. We have some beautiful lands in a town by CT like this, once privately owned, donated to a trust and forbidden from ever being developed.

[bilo]

I consider myself "libertarianish" because I support a lot of individual rights but IMO there is a place for public ownership of land: parks, town squares, libraries, etc. Things that, IMO, the government actually does well or even better than the free market. Of course, there is the case for private owners donating their land to a trust under the guise that it never even get developed. We have some beautiful lands in a town by CT like this, once privately owned, donated to a trust and forbidden from ever being developed.

All reasonable points, but what % of ownership should the federal govt have?

Currently the federal govt owns almost 50% of all land west of the Mississippi river and only 4% of the land east of the Mississippi river.

[jafo2010]

Taking the money from the sale of federal lands to pay down the national debt is not a bad idea.  I support that, with some formula that say the feds should be limited to owning 49% of the land in any geographic area.  I arrive at that number based on where I own one house, where the government owns 85% of the land in the area, comprised of several counties in North Carolina.

Our county has a population of 8,000 people for a rather large county, landmass wise.  We are on one of the prettiest lakes in the USA.  It is beautiful here, and like I said, the feds own 85% of the land. 

But more important is the NECESSITY of the federal government to balance the budget each year.  This needs to become law, otherwise the worthless Congress will continue to spend us blind.

DOGE should have the ability to cut resources working for the federal government by a minimum of 40%.  I could do it in my sleep.  Government has been a hands off operation for review for such a long time, they are long overdue for a hard look to cut waste, which is beyond abundant in the federal government.

There are roughly 450 agencies and bureaus and I say eliminate half of them in the 1st two years.  And if the Republicans hold their majorities two years in, cut government in half again so that we end up with about 120 agencies.  It can be done if the stinking politicians and bureaucrats get out of the way.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

All reasonable points, but what % of ownership should the federal govt have?

Currently the federal govt owns almost 50% of all land west of the Mississippi river and only 4% of the land east of the Mississippi river.

Good question, i don't have an answer and if I did it wouldn't matter because nobody in politics would listen to me.

Maybe let's start by assessing the potential value of our land and see if it covers our liabilities. Probably, it doesn't come close. If it's basically unused, for even recreational purposes, that's a no brainer. Like most things with balancing the budget, we have some tough choices ahead of us.

[GtHawk]

I think all the land and minerals on and under them stolen by Barry and Brandon should be returned to the respective states.

[bilo]

Taking the money from the sale of federal lands to pay down the national debt is not a bad idea.  I support that, with some formula that say the feds should be limited to owning 49% of the land in any geographic area.  I arrive at that number based on where I own one house, where the government owns 85% of the land in the area, comprised of several counties in North Carolina.

Our county has a population of 8,000 people for a rather large county, landmass wise.  We are on one of the prettiest lakes in the USA.  It is beautiful here, and like I said, the feds own 85% of the land. 

But more important is the NECESSITY of the federal government to balance the budget each year.  This needs to become law, otherwise the worthless Congress will continue to spend us blind.

DOGE should have the ability to cut resources working for the federal government by a minimum of 40%.  I could do it in my sleep.  Government has been a hands off operation for review for such a long time, they are long overdue for a hard look to cut waste, which is beyond abundant in the federal government.

There are roughly 450 agencies and bureaus and I say eliminate half of them in the 1st two years.  And if the Republicans hold their majorities two years in, cut government in half again so that we end up with about 120 agencies.  It can be done if the stinking politicians and bureaucrats get out of the way.

If my math is anywhere near right the budget can't be balanced without changing non-discretionary spending. We have a deficit of 2.5 trillion in 2024 with a budget of 7 trillion, that's a 35% deficit. Non-discretionary spending is about 74% of the budget. So if we eliminate everything we still come up short by 9%.

I think DOGE is a great idea and really want to see govt cut and modernized, but that alone won't fix our mess. We need growth and more revenue as well.

[bilo]

I think all the land and minerals on and under them stolen by Barry and Brandon should be returned to the respective states.

 

And the States should figure out how to privatize most of the land so it can be put to it's highest and best use.

[berdie]

I think all the land and minerals on and under them stolen by Barry and Brandon should be returned to the respective states.

 

[berdie]

I am torn on this issue...

As a Western man, I am the indisputable recipient of a certain largess - I have the benefit of giant tracts of land that I am free to walk upon. Sure there are places I can't go - private lands in ranches and timber sales that by eastern standards are huge in themselves, but in the light of those federal and state lands, almost merely a drop in the bucket.

By and large, I can go where I want, and camp where I want... Take from the land as I see fit, at least in some degree... And that degree includes an ability toward real subsistence, which is the point:

I don't find that to be the case elsewhere if you omit crown lands in Canada. Most places cannot sustain one such as I, the land all cut up and fenced off, and waterways blocked by land rights...

It is a malady I find in my Eastern and Southern friends - They are excited to obtain permission to hut a tiny plot of land, because otherwise they cannot hunt at all. Terribly limited fishing access. A friend of mine in Michigan that is in the black powder crowd, a trapper and woods oriented enthusiast that loves to live a life that I take for granted that he cannot obtain... All driven by private property owning everything.

I step outside myself, normally abhorred by government mismanagement and exerted authority... gating off access, preventing the gathering of firewood that will otherwise burn the forest down... Preventing fair use of the land with machinery.

But as much as I detest that authority, I must recognize That I would never have had the ability to walk this big magnificent land - To be able to live free - Had it all been bought up a century past.

That treasure far exceeds whatever monetary value that land might obtain.

Interesting thoughts and post @roamer_1 . But isn't there a "cost of admission" to access the federally owned property to hunt, fish or just roam around? I honestly don't know the answer to this.

[rustynail]

China has claims to all that land.

[Hoodat]

Let's say the federal government decides to sell off around one-third of the desert land it owns (200 million acres) at $500/acre.  This would net them about $100 billion, enough to cover 0.27% of our national debt.

Now ask yourself this question:  If our government was handed a $100 billion windfall from such a land sale, what would be the probability that they actually used that money to pay down the debt?  Answer:  zero!  Our government would immediately come up with something to spend the $100 billion on, just like they just did a week ago.

[roamer_1]

Interesting thoughts and post @roamer_1 . But isn't there a "cost of admission" to access the federally owned property to hunt, fish or just roam around? I honestly don't know the answer to this.

No @berdie ... Not outside of natl' parks, and other than conservation license, fishing license, and hunting tags...

Now, nat'l parks (like Glacier Nat'l Park, Yellowstone Natl' Park and etc) DO require admission and are much heavier in restrictions.

And in national and state forests, you can find camping areas that charge a fee to camp there (usually by the honor system)... Which is fair, I suppose, since they developed the camp ground and use the funds for upkeep of trails and camps... But nothing stops you from going where it's undeveloped and throw a camp of your own.

And I should add that is by foot or by animal... Motorized access is getting further and further restricted, which is what people out here are hollering about when they speak of getting gated off. If the road is gated, you can go around the gate on foot or on the hoof, but you cannot go around the gate with any motorized thing.

But on the whole, at least around here, you go where you want, and camp where you want, with access up (navigable) waterways to the high water mark (in spite of property and water rights).

[roamer_1]

I consider myself "libertarianish" because I support a lot of individual rights but IMO there is a place for public ownership of land: parks, town squares, libraries, etc. Things that, IMO, the government actually does well or even better than the free market. Of course, there is the case for private owners donating their land to a trust under the guise that it never even get developed. We have some beautiful lands in a town by CT like this, once privately owned, donated to a trust and forbidden from ever being developed.

I am usually on the other side of this argument. I despise the thought of federally owned land. I can barely stomach the thought of federally curated land - though that thought is easier to swallow.

It is unconstitutional for the feds to 'own' these vast tracts. PERIOD.

But I have to recognize the benefit therein... A result thereof... I can live free. Almost, at least. But it is doable. I can go get firewood. I can hunt and fish. I can live a subsistence lifestyle which would not be possible without those vast tracts.

And you have to understand. The Kootenai forest goes through at least three western states, two Canadian provinces, and two Canadian territories - Maybe even up into Alaska. One forest. Mostly open. That runs right through here to my west and north. And Glacier Park, the Great Bear Wilderness, the Bob Marshall Wilderness, the Swan, and the Mission Mountains to my east and south.

All of that, with the exception of Glacier Park, and a few land holdings, is all open. I can walk off for days and days and never see another human.

It is a big, big land.

[roamer_1]

Let's say the federal government decides to sell off around one-third of the desert land it owns (200 million acres) at $500/acre.  This would net them about $100 billion, enough to cover 0.27% of our national debt.

Now ask yourself this question:  If our government was handed a $100 billion windfall from such a land sale, what would be the probability that they actually used that money to pay down the debt?  Answer:  zero!  Our government would immediately come up with something to spend the $100 billion on, just like they just did a week ago.

*FACTS*