On Fox News Sunday this morning, when pressed by Brit Hume about his future, Newt Gingrich spoke more of having influence over the party platform rather than his continuing presidential aspirations, admitting that he’s not only out of money, but is in deep debt.
In terms of his bid he said, “I’m glad I did this.”, past tense, which is pretty much an admission of the reality that most of us have recognized for some time now.
I think there is a big reality sandwich over at Santorum land as well, although I expect he’ll stick it out until after Pennsylvania.
Of the party platform, Gingrich thinks that the number one plank should be about energy independence. He stated that no future president should bow before the Saudi king in order to get assurances of future oil supply.
Another plank that Gingrich promoted, and that I fully agree with, is that the overabundance of Federally owned lands should be sold and the proceeds should go directly toward the principle on the national debt, not into the general fund for Congress to fritter away.
Although it is fitting and necessary that the government should own ample land for military facilities, testing grounds, national parks and research facilities, the government owns too much damned land, particularly in the western states.
This map is from 1997, but the Federal government have been gobbling up even more land since this map was published.
Although the government owns 30% of all American land, it owns 87% of Nevada, 69% of Alaska, and 57% of Utah, for example. This is unnecessary and is indicative of the Federal government’s power grab. Land ownership is power and land ownership is all about an all powerful central government imposing itself far from the capital in DC.
There is a movement by the western states to get their land back from the leviathan and although there is opposition by the usual environmental marxists, the movement appears to be gaining momentum.
“We know firsthand what it means to have limited access to and control over our natural resources. It is interfering with our Western way of life,” said Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, a Republican who was part of the 1980s takeover attempt and who endorsed the latest proposal earlier this month.
With the support of then-President Ronald Reagan, the 1980s effort, born in Nevada, led to some changes in land management. But the larger movement fizzled, in part because it lost support of many land users, including ranchers and miners, who feared the loss of federal subsidies for grazing rights and mining royalties.
This time, the movement originated in Utah as an avenue to evict the federal government and raise money for schools, and it has advanced furthest there.
“We can’t wait any longer,” said Utah Rep. Ken Ivory, a Republican. “We value these open lands and open spaces, but certainly we’re able to manage the multiple use for a sustained yield of natural resources. Utah will show the nation what it means to be self-reliant.”
Perhaps it’s time that we, the people, communicate to Romney urging him to incorporate these two planks.