Smaller increase in spending is a cut to a politician...
I think that's what you meant - with my Mining Engineers background I know a couple of things about water rights, but certainly do not have the knowledge of a specialist in the field. With my 1st job in CO at Climax I learned more. It is a property right, talk to the grazers of the National Forest about that though I do not agree with their logic. If there is a higher & better use for that water they can buy the right as Denver did with many of the small ranches on the Western slope of the state or as Denver did in proving the reservoir they have by Dillon, again on the western slope. Should a city be able to transfer water from one drainage into another? That may be why congress OK'd the Arkansas-Frying Pan transfer from East to West to balance that appropriation by Denver?Quote:
Originally Posted by JD
I have an issue with free flowing streams going to benefit a few - it shows in most areas of low rainfall like MT. I believe it alters the balance of nature where many could enjoy the benefits to benefit only a few. I consider the Environmental Working Group a blessing. The idea of an $11,000,000 exemption (for large Farmers & Ranchers) on inheritance is not in my vocabulary. IMO, if those places were broken up it would benefit the nation long term, some destruction being beneficial. When Jon Kyl was Sen R-AZ he had proposed that they pay tax on the gain at the capital gains rate, which I believe fair. Bob Dole had shepherded a rider through congress that allowed the Gallo winery to avoid the tax on $200,000,000 so I voted for a minority candidate for POTUS.
We live on a small acreage with much attendant wildlife. There will be a time when I am no longer able to keep this property up which will change our lifestyle & attendant quality of life unless we are able to find something that fits. I do not need to blow holes in the sky to appreciate the winged creatures, those four legged critters or the crawly things that affect the balance of nature.
A little bit of humor about sequester ... Saturday Night Live Opening
I'll add for Marvin, that I know few farmers in the MRGCD, not that I know a few. Self-Appointed Police on RTF PP run the gamut, from spelling, syntax, grammar, punctuation, political philosophy, etc. Others feel compelled to edit posts at their whim, believing that they know better what the poster was saying. You know, the 'I fixed it for you' syndrome. (I've been guilty:().
Marvin, I am no expert on water rights either. The system in NM is highly convoluted with pre-emminent rights, 1908 rights, rights established in the 40's and 50's by the Bureau of Reclamation. Water pacts formed at that time maybe just as out of date as section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of the 60's. On the Rio Grande we are witnessing a complete reversal of what were thought to be 'good' management plans a few decades ago. Sometimes engineers are forced to re-evaluate and concede their mistakes. I'm sure that has never happened to you? Right?
I do believe in free flowing rivers. The Rio Grande has never been dammed for hydro-electification, but it has been dammed for irrigation in the desert. The winged, four-legged, and crawly critters have been negatively impacted.
When you are no longer able to care for your property, try to make sure it goes into a protected status for the future. OK?
Has the gall to suggest uses for that person's private property. I will do my best to educate the local public on the value of protecting those creatures so many have skin in the game. This will be done at our expense with the blessing of my partner. We will not be making any gifts to the public. Though ours would be on a smaller scale one only need look at the Ford Foundation to see good intentions run amok & contrary to the founders wishes & intent.
But then the smartest kid in the 8th grade should be able to keep up.:D
In the end, what do you all think of the outcome of the recent skirmish? Did the POTUS win the battle of sequestration? Or did the Rs gain some stature by standing firm?
As it turns out, due to the narrow scope of sequestration cuts, about 9% decrease falls in certain areas and 13% in defense. Obviously, when the POTUS' team presented this measure, they were betting that the Rs would not let defense take such a big hit, so they would "deal". But does any of us believe that the Defense Dept/Military doesn't waste at least 13% of their money? There has always been ample furor that they do so. Even if you support strong defense, one can believe this is true. Now they should go find out where the waste is, and keep the country safe as they are all sworn to do.
Truthfully, many citizens have had to cut their budgets by that much during this administration. Remember that food and energy are NOT included in the COL index. So, those in the middle and lower classes have also had their budgets cut more heavily than inflation or decreased compensation would indicate. The latter ran about 4% combined, the cost of food and energy have easily run into double digits (maybe triple digits for energy).
Will private sector actually cut jobs due to the sequester? 750,000 jobs cited by Sperling ... 1 million work for govt. Will 3/4 of govt jobs disappear? Private sector should actually be a bit more optimistic that govt spending is somewhat cut back ... though some of those jobs are dependent on govt spending. Some companies will be affected more than others.
Did the POTUS' "sky is falling" tactic, hurt his credibility?
However, with Obamacare coming into implementation simultaneously, will it make it more difficult to tell which jobs are lost due to the sequester or the effects of Obamacare? Maybe that was part of the POTUS' strategy WRT making a sequester deal impossible? People won't blame Obamacare; they will blame sequester. They will forget that both were his idea :-) No-win situation for the opposite side.
Will someone finally decide that the screws should be put to the Senate for failing to do its job in passing a budget?
It occurs to me that most of Congress and the POTUS are already independently wealthy. If ANY of them wanted to show their seriousness about cutting spending ... their pay cannot be cut (by law), but couldn't they all voluntarily contribute their compensation back to the Treasury? or part of it? or cut back their own spending within their offices? It could be voluntary ... not a law, but a resolution of the Congress. How about a resolution for each Congressperson to reduce their office expenditures by 10%.
Rand Paul presents the Treasury with a check each year for the $ allocated to his office that he does not spend, through his frugal management. Shouldn't there be a cap on "franking" privileges (which are often used for campaigning)? What about expenditures for furniture and other "fixture" niceties?