Skip to main content

A few facts for those who think we can't have a limited government. . . .

. . . because I persist in believing that they don't have the slightest idea just how bloated the leviathan has become.

First, think about Federal lands. East of Denver the US government owns less than 2% of the land. West of Denver the Federal government owns an astounding 65% of it. Break that down by states, and you find that the Feds own 98% of Alaska, 86% of Nevada, 65% of Idaho.



Exactly how much land is that? Nobody knows. That's right--not even the Feds themselves, because--as MAPPS (the Management Association of Private Photogrammetic Surveyors--points out in a recent position paper:

How much land does the Federal Government own? Congress can have a healthy debate over whether the
government’s real property portfolio is too large or too small, but the answer to the above question is – we
really don’t know.

In December 2006, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported the Federal government failed its
audit for FY 2006. GAO has repeatedly (108th, 109th, 110th Congresses) designated Federal Real Property Asset
Management one of the high-risk areas within the Federal government most prone to waste, fraud and abuse.
One of the reasons cited by GAO is the fact that the government does not have a current, accurate inventory of
the land it owns. The General Services Administration (GSA) collects data from at least 30 Federal agencies,
but its system has been criticized by GAO for being “unreliable and of limited usefulness” and “not current or
reliable.”


Representatives Chris Cannon (R-UT) and Ron Kind (D-WI) have repeatedly introduced legislation called FLAIR (Federal Land Asset Inventory Reform Act) since 2005, without success. Cannon argues that we need an updated database because

The federal government owns an estimated 670 million acres of land, almost one-third of all land in America. The key word here is “estimated”. The fact is, we really don’t know. To make matters worse, not only do we not know what the federal government owns, we also don’t know what all the federal land is being used for, where its boundaries are located, or whether it is being put to its best use.


Let's try that number again: 670,000,000 acres out of 2,263,960,000 total, or about 29.6% of all land in the United States.

Don't get me wrong: there are often good reasons for the holding of public land--but tell me, did you really know that the government owned between one-fourth and one-third of all the land in the country?

Next, consider Federal buildings.

According to the General Accounting Office, the US Government owns approximately 1,700 Federal buildings, or:

. . . an average of 34 Federal buildings per state . . .

Many of these buildings are in such poor shape that the GAO estimated nearly a decade ago that, despite receiving an average yearly repair budget of $606 million, it would require at least an additional $4 Billion to conduct backlogged repairs that threaten the health and safety of workers, customers, and visitors to these facilities. I cannot find more recent figures, but a glance at recent Federal budgets verifies that this $4B was never allocated, leading me to believe that the number of needed repairs have probably increased significantly.

The GAO reports are filled with unintentional irony. As Federal buildings become too decrepit for some agencies to remain, they move out into more costly leased space in privately owned buildings, leaving the GAO to argue before Congress for additional repair funds, not to bring back the government agencies that have fled, but to attract private lessees in order to generate more income for the upkeep of the buildings, because, after all:

Unlike a private sector company, GSA cannot always dispose of a building simply because it would be economically advantageous to do so.


Which may, after all, be the most significant sentence in the various reports.

Finally (at least for tonight), consider American military bases and buildings at home and abroad.



(Note: this map was generated in 2003, prior to the beginning of construction of at least twelve major, permanent bases in Iraq.)

According to the Pentagon,

The Department of Defense remains one of the world’s largest “landlords” with a physical plant consisting of more than 571,200 facilities (buildings, structures and utilities) located on more than 3,700 sites, on nearly 30 million acres.


DOD admits to 766 bases overseas in forty foreign countries, including more than 50,000 "buildings, structures, and utilities" on other nations' soil.

Careful researchers like Chalmers Johnson point out that these estimates are in fact way too low, as they ignore (a) facilities with a total worth of less than $10 million; (b) bases considered transient or temporary that nonetheless exist for multiple years; (c) US buildings and structures owned with foreign military bases; (d) bases officially owned by the State Department or the CIA but utilized by the military; and (e) bases that the military has determined to have operational security requirements that prohibit releasing information.

For example, the Pentagon figures omit several thousand National Guard and Reserve component armories around the country because their individual building value doesn't necessarily reach $10 million, as well as all bases in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Iraq, Israel, Kosovo, Kyrghizistan, and Macedonia.

So let's recap the Federal Government's holdings in just three areas:

Land: 670,000,000 acres (we think, but even the government doesn't know for sure)

Federal buildings: 1,700 (most decaying, many being deserted by government agencies, and now being leased to the private sector instead of being liquidated)

Military bases: 3,700 (including 766 in other countries) with nearly 600,000 "buildings, structures and utilities" spread between them. (That means, by the way, that the US military owns roughly one building for every three troops.)


And I thought I needed to clean out the garage. . . .

Comments

Anonymous said…
Mongolia is looking better and better. No military bases, no terrorism.
Anonymous said…
Excellent post--this is the info we need to emphasize - so many Americans are unaware.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...