Monday, September 1, 2014
Tuesday, July 1, 2014
Obama feels your pain
I am sure the majority of American's can empathize with our President losing his nanny.
Wednesday, May 14, 2014
Catch and release
http://sierraworldequityreview.blogspot.com/2014/05/wells-fargo-bank-to-step-up-as-gold.html?m=1
Great job of protecting our citizen's safety. Another scam for votes.
Thursday, April 17, 2014
Oath Keeper lies
http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2014/04/10/coalition-of-western-state-legislators-sheriffs-and-veterans-stand-vigil-in-support-of-embattled-nevada-rancher-cliven-bundy-%E2%80%98to-prevent-another-ruby-ridge-or-waco%E2%80%9D/
I will go through this article to dispel some of the lies.
The Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association (CSPOA.org), led by retired Arizona Sheriff Richard Mack, and the Oath Keepers organization (oathkeepers.org) are assisting Washington State Representative Matt Shea in organizing a delegation of current serving Western state legislators and Sheriffs to travel to the site of a tense stand-off between Bunkerville, Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The delegation is traveling to Nevada to support a coalition of current serving Nevada legislators being organized by Nevada State Assemblywoman Michele Fiore, of Las Vegas, to stand vigil at the Bundy ranch to prevent Federal Government provocation of violence resulting in another Ruby Ridge or Waco type incident. They also hope that their example of oath-sworn public servants defending the rights of the people will prompt Clark County, Nevada Sheriff Douglas Gillespie and Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval to honor their oaths of office by taking real action to defend the rights of the Bundy family, the rights of all Nevadans, and the sovereignty of the State of Nevada.
This is the same sheriff that said to put women in front to die first for the sensationalism of the media. If you read the Nevada Constitution it recognizes the Federal Government.
All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security and benefit of the people; and they have the right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require it. But the Paramount Allegiance of every citizen is due to the Federal Government in the exercise of all its Constitutional powers as the same have been or may be defined by the Supreme Court of the United States; and no power exists in the people of this or any other State of the Federal Union to dissolve their connection therewith or perform any act tending to impair, subvert, or resist the Supreme Authority of the government of the United States. The Constitution of the United States confers full power on the Federal Government to maintain and Perpetuate its existence, and whensoever any portion of the States, or people thereof attempt to secede from the Federal Union, or forcibly resist the Execution of its laws, the Federal Government may, by warrant of the Constitution, employ armed force in compelling obedience to its Authority.
It is necessary that current serving public servants step in-between the protesters and the BLM, to protect the rights of the people and to prevent violence against them by the militarized federal law enforcement that are massing near the ranch to continue the forced confiscation (theft) of Bundy’s cattle, while they also restrict all access to huge tracts of public land, and attempt to restrict the free speech of protesters with their absurd “First Amendment Area” (which the protesters are ignoring, to their honor).
There is no theft of the cattle, it is a court imposed ruling that has been brewing for 20 years. It started under previous administrations.
Under the Founders design, the states were to control their own land, unless, and until, the federal government purchased a particular piece of land, with the consent of the state legislature, for a fort, magazine, arsenal, dock-yard, etc.
When did the Federal government purchase the millions of acres in Nevada it claims to own? When did the legislature of Nevada ever consent to it? Where are the forts, magazine, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings on that land? Where in the Constitution does it say the federal government can keep 80% of a state when it is admitted into the Union? Nowhere. And yet the federal government totally ignores the limited powers of Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, doctrine of equal footing, whereby new states admitted to the Union were to enter it on an equal footing with the original states. Why doesn’t Virginia have 80% of its land claimed by the federal government? Why doesn’t Ohio? It is only in the West that this absurdity exists (and it is not just in Nevada. Similar abuses are seen in the rest of the West).
How did the land of Nevada come into existence it was not the Army of Nevada that defeated Mexico and obtained the land, it was the US Army and US Navy how the US obtained the land mass of Nevada. During the 1800s there were the homesteading acts that people got the land. There are lots of lost dreams throughout the West you can see old homesteads that did not survive, and people did not want the land since it was not productive.
You have to remember that Bundy only owns 160 acres it would be like you had your neighbor turn your property into his/hers. The US won the land in the West in wars or purchase, the States did not fight any wars or purchase the land. Lets get real and look at the facts.
One interesting fact I have not seen is what do Bundy's neighbors think of this and has he paid his property taxes on his measly 160 acres?
I will go through this article to dispel some of the lies.
The Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association (CSPOA.org), led by retired Arizona Sheriff Richard Mack, and the Oath Keepers organization (oathkeepers.org) are assisting Washington State Representative Matt Shea in organizing a delegation of current serving Western state legislators and Sheriffs to travel to the site of a tense stand-off between Bunkerville, Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The delegation is traveling to Nevada to support a coalition of current serving Nevada legislators being organized by Nevada State Assemblywoman Michele Fiore, of Las Vegas, to stand vigil at the Bundy ranch to prevent Federal Government provocation of violence resulting in another Ruby Ridge or Waco type incident. They also hope that their example of oath-sworn public servants defending the rights of the people will prompt Clark County, Nevada Sheriff Douglas Gillespie and Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval to honor their oaths of office by taking real action to defend the rights of the Bundy family, the rights of all Nevadans, and the sovereignty of the State of Nevada.
This is the same sheriff that said to put women in front to die first for the sensationalism of the media. If you read the Nevada Constitution it recognizes the Federal Government.
All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security and benefit of the people; and they have the right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require it. But the Paramount Allegiance of every citizen is due to the Federal Government in the exercise of all its Constitutional powers as the same have been or may be defined by the Supreme Court of the United States; and no power exists in the people of this or any other State of the Federal Union to dissolve their connection therewith or perform any act tending to impair, subvert, or resist the Supreme Authority of the government of the United States. The Constitution of the United States confers full power on the Federal Government to maintain and Perpetuate its existence, and whensoever any portion of the States, or people thereof attempt to secede from the Federal Union, or forcibly resist the Execution of its laws, the Federal Government may, by warrant of the Constitution, employ armed force in compelling obedience to its Authority.
It is necessary that current serving public servants step in-between the protesters and the BLM, to protect the rights of the people and to prevent violence against them by the militarized federal law enforcement that are massing near the ranch to continue the forced confiscation (theft) of Bundy’s cattle, while they also restrict all access to huge tracts of public land, and attempt to restrict the free speech of protesters with their absurd “First Amendment Area” (which the protesters are ignoring, to their honor).
There is no theft of the cattle, it is a court imposed ruling that has been brewing for 20 years. It started under previous administrations.
Under the Founders design, the states were to control their own land, unless, and until, the federal government purchased a particular piece of land, with the consent of the state legislature, for a fort, magazine, arsenal, dock-yard, etc.
When did the Federal government purchase the millions of acres in Nevada it claims to own? When did the legislature of Nevada ever consent to it? Where are the forts, magazine, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings on that land? Where in the Constitution does it say the federal government can keep 80% of a state when it is admitted into the Union? Nowhere. And yet the federal government totally ignores the limited powers of Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, doctrine of equal footing, whereby new states admitted to the Union were to enter it on an equal footing with the original states. Why doesn’t Virginia have 80% of its land claimed by the federal government? Why doesn’t Ohio? It is only in the West that this absurdity exists (and it is not just in Nevada. Similar abuses are seen in the rest of the West).
How did the land of Nevada come into existence it was not the Army of Nevada that defeated Mexico and obtained the land, it was the US Army and US Navy how the US obtained the land mass of Nevada. During the 1800s there were the homesteading acts that people got the land. There are lots of lost dreams throughout the West you can see old homesteads that did not survive, and people did not want the land since it was not productive.
You have to remember that Bundy only owns 160 acres it would be like you had your neighbor turn your property into his/hers. The US won the land in the West in wars or purchase, the States did not fight any wars or purchase the land. Lets get real and look at the facts.
One interesting fact I have not seen is what do Bundy's neighbors think of this and has he paid his property taxes on his measly 160 acres?
Oath Keepers and Lies
One time I had thought about joining the Oath Keepers and so glad I did not join that they have shown their true colors in Nevada.
How can you be associated with an organization that shows the oath of office:
I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God
I am a retired veteran and for 28 years I have defended the Constitution of the United States and the Oath Keepers have broken their vows in the case of the Bundy Ranch in Nevada.
The courts have ruled against Bundy in due process: One argument is that this process is unconstitutional. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments each contain a Due Process Clause, they Federal Government followed Due Process and the courts have ruled against Mr. Bundy. You can look in each paper and see that Due Process has been applied to personal property for people that have not paid their property tax or mortgage. Simply, Mr. Bundy has not paid a debt, and the court has ruled against him.
They wanted to put women and children on the front lines for blood shed.
They had people with weapons pointed at commissioned law enforcement personnel and innocent bystanders.
They state This will be a long struggle. The BLM and Harry Reid have stated that it is not over. We Oath Keepers plan on being there as long as it takes. Elias Alias, our Editor and Board member, is on his way to the Bundy Ranch today, for an extended stay. He’s 67 years old, and a Vietnam Vet, who still heeds the call of freedom. http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2014/04/17/ongoing-support-needed-for-bundy-ranch/
They have decided what is right and wrong, but again if they would even follow the US or Nevada Constitution they are in the wrong. What is the call of freedom? I thought we have three branches of government and all are elected except the court system.
I find it amazing to read the comments on articles that people really do not understand the county we live in.
My next post will be to go point by point through their post on Bundy
How can you be associated with an organization that shows the oath of office:
I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God
I am a retired veteran and for 28 years I have defended the Constitution of the United States and the Oath Keepers have broken their vows in the case of the Bundy Ranch in Nevada.
The courts have ruled against Bundy in due process: One argument is that this process is unconstitutional. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments each contain a Due Process Clause, they Federal Government followed Due Process and the courts have ruled against Mr. Bundy. You can look in each paper and see that Due Process has been applied to personal property for people that have not paid their property tax or mortgage. Simply, Mr. Bundy has not paid a debt, and the court has ruled against him.
They wanted to put women and children on the front lines for blood shed.
They had people with weapons pointed at commissioned law enforcement personnel and innocent bystanders.
They state This will be a long struggle. The BLM and Harry Reid have stated that it is not over. We Oath Keepers plan on being there as long as it takes. Elias Alias, our Editor and Board member, is on his way to the Bundy Ranch today, for an extended stay. He’s 67 years old, and a Vietnam Vet, who still heeds the call of freedom. http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2014/04/17/ongoing-support-needed-for-bundy-ranch/
They have decided what is right and wrong, but again if they would even follow the US or Nevada Constitution they are in the wrong. What is the call of freedom? I thought we have three branches of government and all are elected except the court system.
I find it amazing to read the comments on articles that people really do not understand the county we live in.
My next post will be to go point by point through their post on Bundy
Sheriff to sacrifice women
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/04/15/former-sheriff-women-need-to-be-the-first-ones-shot-by-feds-in-bundy-ranch-standoff/
This is something to be proud of: and willing to sacrifice his wife and daughters:
This is something to be proud of: and willing to sacrifice his wife and daughters:
A former Arizona sheriff who has taken the side of cattle ranchers in Nevada said this week that he would have allowed his own wife and daughters to be shot as human shields because it would look bad for the federal government on television.
In a statement to Fox News on Monday that was first flagged by Glenn Beck’s The Blaze, former Sheriff Richard Mack talked about his strategy to put women on the front lines if a gunfight broke out between “rogue federal agents” and rancher Cliven Bundy, who reportedly owes the taxpayers more than $1 million for allowing his cattle to graze on government land.
Two Images
Who ever this person is needs to go to jail, pointing a weapon at people I think it is a crime.
Bundy no claim to federal land
http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2014/04/14/cliven-bundy-has-no-claim-to-federal-land-and-grazing/
By Ralph Maughan and Ken Cole
In the acrimonious case of Cliven Bundy, it is important that folks understand a bit about the history of the U.S. public lands.
Cliven Bundy, the rancher whose cattle were rounded up and then released by the BLMover the weekend, claims that his family has used the land in question since 1880 but the Nevada Constitution pre-dates this by 16 years. When Nevada became a state in 1864, its citizens gave up all claims to unappropriated federal land and codified this in the state’s Constitution. The Nevada Constitution states:
Bundy is Anti-American and Anti Constitution
http://www.drudge.com/news/178134/cliven-bundy-anti-american
Great Article on Bundy's Words
This is a great article that Bundy does not even know what the Nevada Constitution says:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/04/the-irony-of-cliven-bundys-unconstitutional-stand/360587/
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/04/the-irony-of-cliven-bundys-unconstitutional-stand/360587/
The Irony of Cliven Bundy's Unconstitutional Stand
By
Twenty-one years ago, rancher Cliven Bundy stopped paying his grazing fees.
Bundy does not recognize federal authority over land where his ancestors first settled in the 1880s, which he claims belongs to the state of Nevada. The Bureau of Land Management disagreed and took him to federal court, which first ruled in favor of the BLM in 1998. After years of attempts at a negotiated settlement over the $1.2 million Bundy owes in fees failed, federal land agents began seizing hundreds of his cattle illegally grazing on public land last week.
But after footage of a BLM agent using a stun gun on Bundy's adult son went viral in far-right circles, hundreds of armed militia supporters from neighboring states flocked to Bundy's ranch to defend him from the BLM agents enforcing the court order. The states'-rights groups, in echoes of Ruby Ridge and Waco, came armed and prepared for violence. "I'm ready to pull the trigger if fired upon," one of the anti-government activists told Reuters. Not eager to spill blood over cattle, the BLM backed down Sunday and started returning the livestock it had confiscated. The agency says it won't drop the matter and will "continue to work to resolve the matter administratively and judicially."
Federalism—genuine states' rights—is perhaps more familiar to Nevadans than to any other state's denizens. To boost the state's ailing economy in the early 20th century, Nevada exploited the federal architecture of American law to create uniquely permissive laws on divorce, gambling, and prostitution, bringing in much-needed tourism revenue and giving the state a distinctive libertarian character. Just this weekend, the state Republican Party dropped statements opposing abortion and same-sex marriage from its platform at their convention, bucking the party's national stance.
But Bundy's understanding of states' rights is far different. As he told Sean Hannity in an interview last week (emphasis added):
Well, you know, my cattle is only one issue—that the United States courts has ordered that the government can seize my cattle. But what they have done is seized Nevada statehood, Nevada law, Clark County public land, access to the land, and have seized access to all of the other rights of Clark County people that like to go hunting and fishing. They've closed all those things down, and we're here to protest that action. And we are after freedom. We're after liberty. That's what we want.
Bundy's claim that the land belongs to Nevada or Clark County didn't hold up in court, nor did his claim of inheriting an ancestral right to use the land that pre-empts the BLM's role. "We definitely don't recognize [the BLM director's] jurisdiction or authority, his arresting power or policing power in any way," Bundy told his supporters, according to The Guardian.
His personal grievance with federal authority doesn't stop with the BLM, though. "I believe this is a sovereign state of Nevada," Bundy said in a radio interview last Thursday. "I abide by all of Nevada state laws. But I don’t recognize the United States government as even existing." Ironically, this position directly contradicts Article 1, Section 2 of the Nevada Constitution:
All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security and benefit of the people; and they have the right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require it. But the Paramount Allegiance of every citizen is due to the Federal Government in the exercise of all its Constitutional powers as the same have been or may be defined by the Supreme Court of the United States; and no power exists in the people of this or any other State of the Federal Union to dissolve their connection therewith or perform any act tending to impair, subvert, or resist the Supreme Authority of the government of the United States. The Constitution of the United States confers full power on the Federal Government to maintain and Perpetuate its existence, and whensoever any portion of the States, or people thereof attempt to secede from the Federal Union, or forcibly resist the Execution of its laws, the Federal Government may, by warrant of the Constitution, employ armed force in compelling obedience to its Authority.
The paramount-allegiance clause, a product of the era in which Nevada gained statehood, originated in Nevada's first (and unofficial) constitutional convention of 1863. Some 3,000 miles to the east, the Civil War raged between the federal government in the North and West and the rebellion that had swallowed the South. In early 1864, Abraham Lincoln—who wanted more pro-Union states in Congress so as to pass the amendment to abolish slavery, and a few more electoral votes to guarantee his reelection that fall—signed a bill authorizing Nevada to convene an official constitutional convention for statehood. The state constitution's framers, who were overwhelmingly Unionist, retained the clause in solidarity with the Union when they gathered in July 1864.
Nevada isn't the only state with a paramount-allegiance clause. Republicans added similar clauses to Reconstruction-era state constitutions throughout the South, although few survived subsequent revisions after federal troops departed. Even the states that retain the phrase "paramount allegiance" today, like North Carolina and Mississippi, don't share Nevada's explicit constitutional openness toward armed federal intervention to enforce it.
That pro-federal sentiment also guided Nevada's first congressional delegation when it arrived in the nation's capital in early 1865. William Stewart, the Silver State's first senator, proposed an amendmentto the U.S. Constitution in December 1865 that would've enshrined a weaker form of the paramount allegiance clause at the federal level:
First—The Union of the States, under this constitution, is indissoluble, and no State can absolve its citizens from the obligation of paramount allegiance to the United States.Second—No engagement made, or obligation incurred by any State, or by any number of States, or by any county, city, or any other municipal corporation to subvert, impair, or resist the authority of the United States, or to support or aid any legislative convention or body in hostility to such authority, shall ever be held, voted, or be assumed or sustained, in whole or part, by any State or by the United States.
This proposed amendment—which would have resolved secession's constitutionality for all time—did not succeed. The U.S. Supreme Court later ruled in Texas v. White in 1869 that secession had been unconstitutional and that "the Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union composed of indestructible states." Stewart nevertheless left his mark on the Constitution the same year as White, when he wrote what would become the Fifteenth Amendment, guaranteeing black suffrage.
Two decades after Nevada's founders proclaimed unswerving obedience to federal authority, Cliven Bundy's family first settled the land where he and his supporters now make their heavily armed stand against federal power. It's doubtful even the Nevada Constitution will change their minds—if legal and constitutional arguments could persuade the militia movement, there might not be a militia movement.
This article available online at:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/04/the-irony-of-cliven-bundys-unconstitutional-stand/360587/
Copyright © 2014 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All Rights Reserved.
Wednesday, April 16, 2014
Facts of Bundy versus the US
I have to comment on the recent comments about the state
control versus control of lands and want to put some fact into the argument no
matter which side of the matter you are on.
One argument is that this process is unconstitutional. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments each
contain a Due Process Clause, they Federal Government followed Due Process and
the courts have ruled against Mr. Bundy.
You can look in each paper and see that Due Process has been applied to
personal property for people that have not paid their property tax or
mortgage. Simply, Mr. Bundy has not paid
a debt, and the court has ruled against him.
The argument that the
State owns the land, if you take this argument, then Utah, Spain, and Native
Americans could have a claim to the land before Mr. Bundy, since Mr. Bundy only
has 160 deeded acres. Nevada was carved
out of the Utah Territory in 1861 and the land area became part of the United
States through the United States victory in the Mexican-American War. Mexico
ceded the territories of Alta California and New Mexico for $15 Million. Alta California included the current states
of California, Nevada, Arizona, Utah, Western Colorado and Southwestern
Wyoming. There was not a state Army that
defeated Mexico, it was the United States Army and Navy that defeated Mexico. The land was ceded to the United States, and
not a state and the states were formed from the contiguous land mass of the
United States by Acts of Congress. The
Homesteading Act provided a means of transfer from the Federal Government to
private owners. In Montana, east of the
continental divide was part of the Louisiana Purchase and the Western portion
the Treaty of Oregon, between the United States and Britian.
There is the argument concerning grazing fees and the states
could manage the federal property better. Do you know what the grazing fee is
for an Animal Unit Month (AUM)? It is the Animal Unit Month for one cow and her
calf, one horse or five sheep or goats for a month. The cost is $1.35 per AUM for Federal
Land. The state of Montana charges
$9.94, that would be an increase of $8.59, who does not believe that this would
be an impact for the local rancher. (https://dnrc.mt.gov/Trust/AGM/Default.asp)
The counties would have a deficit of $26.5 million in
Payment in Lieu of Taxes that the Federal Government currently pays to counties
for the loss of tax revenues. Nevada
received $23 million in payments in lieu of taxes. http://www.doi.gov/pilt/county-payments.cfm
|
COUNTY
|
PAYMENT
|
TOTAL
ACRES |
|
ANACONDA DEER LODGE COUNTY
|
$386,440
|
215,181
|
|
BEAVERHEAD COUNTY
|
$679,159
|
2,046,632
|
|
BIG HORN COUNTY
|
$13,750
|
41,433
|
|
BLAINE COUNTY
|
$813,876
|
451,657
|
|
BROADWATER COUNTY
|
$553,314
|
288,781
|
|
CARBON COUNTY
|
$796,238
|
574,660
|
|
CARTER COUNTY
|
$190,948
|
593,361
|
|
CASCADE COUNTY
|
$419,841
|
214,475
|
|
CHOUTEAU COUNTY
|
$342,023
|
156,184
|
|
CUSTER COUNTY
|
$792,469
|
333,580
|
|
DANIELS COUNTY
|
$0
|
200
|
|
DAWSON COUNTY
|
$21,225
|
63,960
|
|
FALLON COUNTY
|
$38,461
|
115,901
|
|
FERGUS COUNTY
|
$1,089,117
|
484,948
|
|
FLATHEAD COUNTY
|
$2,173,745
|
2,438,965
|
|
GALLATIN COUNTY
|
$1,461,043
|
732,997
|
|
GARFIELD COUNTY
|
$204,576
|
814,977
|
|
GLACIER COUNTY
|
$934,215
|
401,497
|
|
GOLDEN VALLEY COUNTY
|
$56,945
|
31,537
|
|
GRANITE COUNTY
|
$232,970
|
702,050
|
|
HILL COUNTY
|
$106,035
|
47,718
|
|
JEFFERSON COUNTY
|
$984,131
|
553,147
|
|
JUDITH BASIN COUNTY
|
$125,158
|
308,427
|
|
LAKE COUNTY
|
$382,783
|
173,937
|
|
LEWIS & CLARK COUNTY
|
$2,184,611
|
1,081,937
|
|
LIBERTY COUNTY
|
$62,392
|
33,656
|
|
LINCOLN COUNTY
|
$580,059
|
1,747,997
|
|
MADISON COUNTY
|
$656,474
|
1,055,265
|
|
MCCONE COUNTY
|
$271,831
|
274,105
|
|
MEAGHER COUNTY
|
$160,294
|
483,044
|
|
MINERAL COUNTY
|
$211,977
|
638,789
|
|
MISSOULA COUNTY
|
$1,464,787
|
826,979
|
|
MUSSELSHELL COUNTY
|
$186,472
|
87,517
|
|
PARK COUNTY
|
$1,044,257
|
953,524
|
|
PETROLEUM COUNTY
|
$82,901
|
335,040
|
|
PHILLIPS COUNTY
|
$456,938
|
1,376,973
|
|
PONDERA COUNTY
|
$196,745
|
107,919
|
|
POWDER RIVER COUNTY
|
$198,029
|
596,756
|
|
POWELL COUNTY
|
$265,751
|
742,655
|
|
PRAIRIE COUNTY
|
$142,521
|
429,486
|
|
RAVALLI COUNTY
|
$1,959,799
|
1,115,675
|
|
RICHLAND COUNTY
|
$17,988
|
54,206
|
|
ROOSEVELT COUNTY
|
$1,421
|
4,284
|
|
ROSEBUD COUNTY
|
$108,140
|
325,876
|
|
SANDERS COUNTY
|
$303,664
|
915,087
|
|
SHERIDAN COUNTY
|
$591
|
1,781
|
|
SILVER BOW CENSUS CTY
|
$481,305
|
233,605
|
|
STILLWATER COUNTY
|
$355,062
|
191,193
|
|
SWEET GRASS COUNTY
|
$383,994
|
302,039
|
|
TETON COUNTY
|
$583,746
|
284,568
|
|
TOOLE COUNTY
|
$47,723
|
45,779
|
|
TREASURE COUNTY
|
$248
|
748
|
|
VALLEY COUNTY
|
$995,515
|
1,122,580
|
|
WHEATLAND COUNTY
|
$101,177
|
65,924
|
|
WIBAUX COUNTY
|
$8,958
|
26,995
|
|
YELLOWSTONE COUNTY
|
$183,239
|
78,235
|
|
TOTAL
|
26,497,071
|
27,326,422
|
Another
great reference is how much does the Federal Government impact Montana’s
economy. For each dollar Montanans pay in Federal taxes they receive $1.47
back. http://visualizingeconomics.com/blog/2010/02/17/federal-taxes-paidreceived-for-each-state
38.46% of Montana’s general revenue is from the Federal
Government in 2012. http://www.statebudgetsolutions.org/publications/detail/new-data-reveals-amount-of-federal-aid-to-states-in-2012
Do you think the State is ready to absorb the fire fighting
costs the Federal Government pays for?
In 2013 over $1.7 Billion.
|
Federal
Firefighting Costs (Suppression Only)
|
|||||
|
Year
|
Fires
|
Acres
|
Forest Service
|
DOI Agencies
|
|
|
1985
|
82,591
|
2,896,147
|
$161,505,000
|
$78,438,000
|
$239,943,000
|
|
1986
|
85,907
|
2,719,162
|
$111,625,000
|
$91,153,000
|
$202,778,000
|
|
1987
|
71,300
|
2,447,296
|
$253,657,000
|
$81,452,000
|
$335,109,000
|
|
1988
|
72,750
|
5,009,290
|
$429,609,000
|
$149,317,000
|
$578,926,000
|
|
1989
|
48,949
|
1,827,310
|
$331,672,000
|
$168,115,000
|
$499,787,000
|
|
1990
|
66,481
|
4,621,621
|
$253,700,000
|
$144,252,000
|
$397,952,000
|
|
1991
|
75,754
|
2,953,578
|
$132,300,000
|
$73,820,000
|
$206,120,000
|
|
1992
|
87,394
|
2,069,929
|
$290,300,000
|
$87,166,000
|
$377,466,000
|
|
1993
|
58,810
|
1,797,574
|
$184,000,000
|
$56,436,000
|
$240,436,000
|
|
1994
|
79,107
|
4,073,579
|
$757,200,000
|
$161,135,000
|
$918,335,000
|
|
1995
|
82,234
|
1,840,546
|
$367,000,000
|
$110,126,000
|
$477,126,000
|
|
1996
|
96,363
|
6,065,998
|
$547,500,000
|
$153,683,000
|
$701,183,000
|
|
1997
|
66,196
|
2,856,959
|
$179,100,000
|
$105,048,000
|
$284,148,000
|
|
1998
|
81,043
|
1,329,704
|
$306,800,000
|
$109,904,000
|
$416,704,000
|
|
1999
|
92,487
|
5,626,093
|
$361,100,000
|
$154,416,000
|
$515,516,000
|
|
2000
|
92,250
|
7,383,493
|
$1,076,000,000
|
$334,802,000
|
$1,410,802,000
|
|
2001
|
84,079
|
3,570,911
|
$683,122,000
|
$269,574,000
|
$952,696,000
|
|
2002
|
73,457
|
7,184,712
|
$1,279,000,000
|
$395,040,000
|
$1,674,040,000
|
|
2003
|
63,629
|
3,960,842
|
$1,023,500,000
|
$303,638,000
|
$1,327,138,000
|
|
2004
|
65,461
|
8,097,880
|
$726,000,000
|
$281,244,000
|
$1,007,244,000
|
|
2005
|
66,753
|
8,689,389
|
$690,000,000
|
$294,054,000
|
$984,054,000
|
|
2006
|
96,385
|
9,873,745
|
$1,501,337,000
|
$424,058,000
|
$1,925,395,000
|
|
2007
|
85,705
|
9,328,045
|
$1,373,919,000
|
$470,491,000
|
$1,844,410,000
|
|
2008
|
78,979
|
5,292,468
|
$1,458,805,000
|
$392,783,000
|
$1,851,588,000
|
|
2009
|
78,792
|
5,921,786
|
$1,018,329,000
|
$218,418,000
|
$1,236,747,000
|
|
2010
|
71,971
|
3,422,724
|
$897,686,000
|
$231,214,000
|
$1,128,900,000
|
|
2011
|
74,126
|
8,711,367
|
$1,414,379,000
|
$318,789,000
|
$1,733,168,000
|
|
2012
|
67,774
|
9,326,238
|
$1,436,614,000
|
$465,832,000
|
$1,902,446,000
|
|
2013
|
47,579
|
4,319,546
|
$1,341,735,000
|
$399,199,000
|
$1,740,934,000
|
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)