Dear editor:
In reference to the current debate about restricting the federal government from purchasing land in Wyoming, Rep. Geringer argued in a recent letter that private property owners should be able to sell to the government.
I would suggest that the federal government does not have the right to buy private property other than as defined in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.
In the letter Rep. Geringer also said that government should be “a servant of the people, not their master.”
But what happens when all the property belongs to the government?
As we all learned in school the answer is communism. Who is the servant then?
If our legislators are unwilling to stand up against more government acquisition of our State which is already 56% owned by government, then when will they stand up? If 56% is acceptable, then is not 80% or 100% also acceptable?
I would bet that everyone in the state legislature would fight to the bitter end to prevent the federal government from purchasing the news outlets in Wyoming (also private property), in the name of upholding the 1st Amendment.
Yet, currently there are many of those same legislators unwilling to uphold the 10th Amendment by denying the federal government from doing what is not enumerated to it. That is an indefensible contradiction.
Lastly, I would say that every acre of land sold or given to the government is an attack on all private property.
This drives up the price of land by forcing the public to bid against the government, which is using the public’s own money or using money in which the government can print an unlimited amount.
Also, by taking land off the tax rolls the remaining private property is forced to carry more of the tax burden.
Our legislators would be well served to remember that one of their main purposes is to “protect” and “defend” us from the government.
Sincerely,
Leif Hanson
Kaycee, Wyoming
