Protect children, don’t exploit them

Imagine if the tobacco lobby started smoker-friendly clubs in high schools, junior highs and even elementary schools. Imagine history textbooks that began including sidebars about famous smokers in history—or biology, literature and mathematics curricula designed to talk about tobacco at every turn.

The children might never be encouraged to use tobacco. But every day kids would face questions from their teachers about whether they might chew or smoke at some point. Would anyone think that this is a good idea? Might some parents raise objections?

Now imagine a tobacco lobby powerful enough to mount a nationwide public relations campaign that painted concerned parents as backward bigots incapable of making healthy decisions for their children. They might even have enough pull to pass school board policies forbidding teachers from informing such “backward parents” if their kids were caught smoking.

As icing on the cake, image a school organizing a field trip to address the legislature in support of a proposed law sponsored by the tobacco lobby. Some might call that advocacy. I would call it the exploitation of minors.

The important word, here, is “minors.” Those who object to such a dystopian school environment would not be objecting because tobacco is illegal. They would not be objecting because they have moral reasons for not smoking—in fact, many of the objecting parents might smoke or chew themselves.

Whether parents think smoking to be disgusting or sexy, sophisticated or slovenly, is completely irrelevant. They would be objecting because the children are minors. Minors are not yet fully developed. Minor bodies are significantly more susceptible to the dangers of tobacco.

Minor minds are even more so. Neuroscience has determined that until full maturation around 25 years old, adolescents are prone to risky behaviors, and highly impressionable. That’s a dangerous combination. While the adolescent brain more susceptible to peer pressure and the undue influence of adult mentors, it is simultaneously less resistant to addictive behaviors.

Out of care and concern for all people who are passing through puberty and adolescence, wise societies have always taken special care to create a safe space where adolescents can grow up before being pressured into making choices that will change their minds and bodies for the rest of their lives.

Tobacco is only one of numerous things that are neither illegal nor intrinsically bad but are withheld from minors as they wait for the true freedom that comes from maturity. Driving a motor vehicle, opening a line of credit, drinking alcohol, marriage and sexuality are on this list as well.

Only the wisdom that comes with age can equip them fully to evaluate such potent things as mind-altering substances and body-altering sexuality. There are healthy ways to use these things, as well as unhealthy ways. A culture that cares about its young people will give them the time and the information to find the healthy way.

That means not only should we hinder minors from having access to these things, we should also shield them from overexposure to their use. Wyoming not only has laws against underage drinking, it also has laws that keep minors out of bars—even when they are not drinking.

Socrates, killed for corrupting children

For the same reasons, Wyoming—as all civil societies—has laws against statutory rape. This is so because even if a minor consents, he or she is not mature enough to do so with full understanding of the physical, psychological and generational implications of the act.

In March, disciplinary protocols at McCormick Junior High were broken by a substitute teacher. The Wyoming Tribune Eagle and Casper Star Tribune have repeated allegations without evidence, knowing full well that the school administration is unable to speak about an ongoing investigation into the actions of a minor. This follows on the heels of students from Cheyenne Central High being used to lobby on adult-themed topics.

Last week Rep. Scott Clem (R-Gillette) raised concern about our young people being exploited by the press and by Wyoming Equality. As a trained caseworker for adolescents he is a proven advocate for kids, not a paid voice for the sex lobby.

Rep. Scott Clem

There is a culture-wide fight over the physical, spiritual and psychological dimensions of sexuality and marriage. Whether you have chosen a side, or still stand squarely in the middle, children are to be protected, not exploited.

Those truly fighting for the health and well-being of our children will shield them from the battle, not use them as human shields. Whether from the tobacco lobby, the credit card industry or the sex lobby, protecting children is our common duty.

WTE: Can Notre Dame be rebuilt?

Notre Dame was more than a building. It was a unifying force across time and space. The cathedral was begun in 1163, but it took 182 years before it was opened in 1345. Imagine a modern building project begun in 1838 and not yet open for business!

Generations poured time, talents and treasures into a church they would never see completed. They were building not for themselves or their children. They were looking seven and eight generations down the road.

Moderns prefer to build in wood and plaster. Stones that withstand the weather of centuries do not comport with a culture capable of changing centuries-old truths like yesterday’s laundry.

The permanence of stone reflects the permanence of the ideas behind the stones. Notre Dame would never have been built if the children and grandchildren of those who laid the foundation decided to abandon the faith of their fathers.

Yet that is exactly what modernism does. The wisdom of millennia is excoriated as “outdated” and “restricting.” Some that abandon it go on to use the power of government to coerce others to do the same.

The most noticeable transformations have come in the area of sexual ethics. For decades counter-cultural forces have been working to remake marriage. They have been largely successful. Marriage as a permanent and exclusive union of a man and a woman is no longer protected by our courts, taught by public schools, or even understood by society at large.

But marriage is only the tip of the iceberg. Disrespect for authority and the adoption of a culture of lies are other signs that Western culture is imploding. For years words like “tissue,” “vegetable” and “fetus,” have been used to deny humanity and to provide ethical cover for destroying it.

In recent months, however, the gloves have come off. From Virginia governor, Ralph Northam’s, comments on public radio to the passage of New York’s draconian “Reproductive Health Act,” we are beginning to see open support for the killing human beings without any attempt to conceal it.

What does all of this have to do with the stones of Notre Dame? Simply this: architecture in stone proclaims an unchanging God who creates a stable and unchangeable world. Without that foundation, every single point of human ethics is up for grabs.

As the almighty and immutable God of Christianity has been incrementally driven out of culture, the result is not some purely secular and non-religious vacuum. A different god has taken His place. Western culture is not losing religion. It is changing religions.

This new god does not say, “I am the Lord, I change not” (Mal. 3:6). Rather, it asks, “how shall I change to suit your mood today?” It builds not in stone, but in plastic. It writes not in Scripture but in cyberspace. It doesn’t create anything but is itself forever being created.

This replacement god is not capable of building another Notre Dame. It may have the technical know-how to make precise replicas of what was burned, but it could never have created such transcendent beauty itself. For the same reason, an ever-evolving god of incapable of creating any coherent and sustainable ethic either.

New atheists have been attempting for several years to construct a convincing ethic in the absence of an unchangeable God. People like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris have been trying to give evolutionary reasons for love, respect for human life, truthfulness and faithfulness. They have failed miserably.

Love is not a product of evolution, but of creation. Aspirations toward love may remain in a culture cut off from its creator, but they are merely remnants of a lost culture. They may even remain for a long time—like stone ruins of an ancient cathedral. But an ever-changing God can never build a culture of love, any more than it could build a cathedral like Notre Dame.

We are increasingly becoming a culture that lives and works among the stones of an ancient cathedral with no understanding of how those stones got there. Notre Dame is now such a pile of stones. It remains to be seen if they will be rebuilt into a living and worshipful cathedral or into a sterile museum of what once was.

Whatever happens, there is one image of hope that will forever be seared into my mind. As the sun set on the burning cathedral, a drone captured a glimpse of transcendent beauty. The bright flames were doing more than consuming centuries-old treasures. They were also emitting a blazing light.

The stones of Notre Dame contained and shaped the flames in the form of a blazing cross. That cross, emblazed against the sky, recalls the love that created our world. It’s the only thing that can remake it again.

Can we rebuild Notre Dame?

Cathedrale Notre-Dame de Paris was more than a building. It was a unifying force across time and across the planet. Planning for the cathedral was begun in 1160, but it took 185 years before it was opened in 1345. Let that sink in.

Imagine a modern building project begun in 1835 and not yet open for business in 2019. Consider generations of workers, architects, donors and artists who poured time, talents and treasures into a church where they would never worship. They were building not for themselves or their children—not even their grandchildren. They were looking seven and eight generations down the road.

Most likely, moderns would have halted construction long ago. Those kinds of resources would have been diverted into a million box churches of wood and plaster. Stones that withstand the weather of centuries do not comport with a culture capable of changing centuries-old truths like yesterday’s laundry.

Not only is the permanence of the stone construction a marvel to behold, more astounding still is the permanence of the ideas behind the stones. Notre Dame would never have been built if the children and grandchildren of those who laid the foundation decided to transform the faith of their fathers in fundamental ways.

Yet that is exactly what modernism aims to do. The most noticeable transformations have come in the area of sexual ethics. For decades counter-cultural forces have been working to remake marriage. They have been largely successful. Marriage as a permanent and exclusive union of a man and a woman is no longer protected by our courts, taught by public schools, or even understood by society at large.

But marriage is only the tip of the iceberg. Western culture is undergoing seismic change in other areas as well. Any experienced teacher will tell you that respect for authority has declined precipitously in recent decades. Disrespect for authority is not limited to the classroom or to the parent-child relationship either. The evening news not only reports, but even encourages insubordination at every level of government.

Truth-telling is another casualty of our culture of endless change. Of course, people have always been tempted to lie to advance their personal interests. And people of all times and places have fallen to this temptation. What marks our time as different is that even when people are caught in open lies, they often escape any real punishment and persist in them as long as there are people who still want to believe their lies.

As a result, modern culture is rapidly losing the principled ethic of telling the truth even if it causes personal loss. In its place is an ethic of “say anything.” The result is a widespread distrust of news outlets, politicians and corporations. Meanwhile, marriages are broken by lies and false promises and our children learn that speech is not for discovering the truth but for projecting power.

Among all these recent changes, none is as alarming as the recent emergence of murder as choice. For decades, ethical questions about the beginning of life and the ending of life have revolved around the definition of human life. Euphemisms like “tissue,” “vegetable” and “fetus,” have been used because they can plausibly deny humanity, leaving open the possibility that destroying it remains ethical.

In recent months, however, that has changed. From Virginia governor, Ralph Northam’s, comments on public radio to the passage of New York’s draconian “Reproductive Health Act,” we are beginning to see public support for the killing of those who are openly admitted to be human beings.

What does all of this have to do with the stones of Notre Dame? Simply this: architecture in stone is meant to proclaim a God who does not change. An unchangeable God creates a stable and unchangeable world. Without that foundation, every single point of human ethics is up for grabs.

As the almighty and immutable God of Christianity has been incrementally driven out of culture, He has not left behind a purely secular and non-religious vacuum. Nature abhors a vacuum. Modernism has replaced the Christian God with an evolving god. Our culture is not losing religion. It is changing religions.

The god of the new religion does not say, “I am the Lord, I change not” (Mal. 3:6). Rather, it asks, “how shall I change to suit your mood today?” It builds not in stone, but in plastic. It writes not in Scripture but in the ether. It doesn’t create anything but is itself forever being created.

This sort of god is not capable of building another Notre Dame. It may have the technical know-how to make precise duplicates of what was burned, but it could never have created the beauty and majesty out of its heart and mind. By the same token, this secular deity is incapable of creating any coherent and sustainable ethic either.

New atheists have been attempting for several years to build a convincing ethic in the absence of an unchangeable God. People like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris have been trying to give solid non-religious reasons why all people should love, protect life, be truthful and be faithful. They have failed miserably.

These ideals resonate in every human heart because every human heart was created by the one God who does not change. Love is not a product of evolution, but of creation. Aspirations toward love may remain in a culture cut off from its creator, but they are merely remnants of a lost culture.

They may even remain for a long time—like stone ruins of an ancient cathedral. But an ever-changing God can never build a culture of love, any more than it could build a cathedral like Notre Dame. We are increasingly becoming a culture that lives and works among the stones of an ancient cathedral with no understanding of how those stones got there.

Last Monday’s fire that gutted Notre Dame left such a pile of stones in the middle of Western culture. Within a few days of the fire, it was reported that a billion dollars had already been donated to rebuild. That is a hopeful sign. It remains to be seen, however, if the stones will be rebuilt into a living and worshipful cathedral or into a sterile museum of what once was.

Whatever happens, there is one image of hope that will forever be seared into my mind. As the sun set on Paris and the conflagration was captured by a circling drone, there was transcendent beauty in the midst of the ashes.

The bright flames were doing more than consuming centuries-old treasures. They were also emitting a blazing light. Architects of the 12th century—whether by accident or by design—made a structure that, when ignited eight centuries later, would pierce the night with a bright red cross for all the world to see. That’s the love that made our world. That’s the love that can remake it again.

WTE: A Lesson on Moral Courage from the Rwandan Genocide

I am racking my brain to remember what I was doing 25 years ago this week. April 6, 1994 was the Wednesday after Easter in the tiny Nebraska town where I lived. I was likely still enjoying the afterglow of my favorite Sunday of the year.

But on the other side of the world an apocalypse was unfolding. Rwandan President Juvenal Habyarimana’s private jet was shot down as he returned home from a regional peace accord. The U.S. State Department believed that he was assassinated by his own Presidential Guard because they were unhappy that the accord required them to share power with their political opponents.

Be that as it may, the Presidential Guard working with the Rwandan army and militia blamed the Tutsi minority and began a pre-planned pogrom of arresting and assassinating political opponents. On April 9, a massacre of hundreds at Pallotine Missionary Catholic Church in Gikondo, was the first clear evidence that the goal was the indiscriminate killing of all Tutsis—ranging from their leaders to the youngest children in the arms of their mothers.

The bloodshed raged for 100 days killing 800,000 Rwandans. Meanwhile, world politicians engaged in fantastical word games designed to avoid using the word “genocide.”

The civilized world was committed to the doctrine of “never again.” Never again would it permit a genocide like what happened to the Armenians (800,000) or the Jews (6,000,000). United Nations agreements were exceedingly clear: any genocide would be stopped by the united military might of civilized nations.

The only thing that could keep the United Nations from military intervention was for politicians to pretend that the wholesale slaughter of Tutsis in Rwanda was not a genocide. So, pretend they did. Who can forget the infamous press conference where the president’s press secretary performed verbal summersaults to avoid stating the obvious truth?

This was a shameful moment in U.S. foreign policy. It is tempting to recriminate. If we blame the politicians who stood before the cameras, we remain blameless. But that would be wrong. The sad fact is that the politicians were reacting to polling data from the American people. They tortured language and avoided the obvious because we, as a nation, did not have the political will to stop yet another genocide.

It is easy to take the moral high ground after an atrocity like Armenia, the Holocaust or Rwanda and firmly say, “never again.” It is infinitely more difficult to take the moral high ground in the middle of an atrocity and say, “not on my watch.”

Taking the moral high ground in the middle of a battle is always costly. The forces of evil will always make it costly to oppose them. That’s how they prepare the battle ground. That’s how they keep civilized people sidelined.

They will always muddy the waters to obscure what is really happening. They will always claim that the people being oppressed are actually the oppressors. They will make sure that any opposition to their pogrom will cost Good Samaritans money, reputation, political standing – and sometimes life itself.

Anyone who thinks that opposition to evil will leave the white knight in shining armor unbloodied and unsullied by the rigors of battle will likely never engage the fight. He will not actually stand to protect his innocent neighbor in anything. This is true because there is no circumstance ever where the forces of evil will admit that they are evil. There is no battle—ever—where the victory is assured. There is no warrior who does not risk the loss of everything.

Moral courage to stand for the oppressed will never be the popular and easy road. That’s why courage never consists in following the crowd. Courage swims against the current.

For a democratic republic to exercise moral courage in the face of the next genocide, it requires a majority of citizens to have personal moral courage. If Rwanda taught us one thing, it taught us that resolutions on a piece of paper at the U.N. are meaningless unless there is an equally firm resolution in the heart of every citizen.

Nations and organizations can always weasel out of their words. It is the heart that matters. And hearts are not found in organizations or nations, but in individual human chests.

If you want to be courageous as a nation the next time America is faced with a duty and responsibility to stand against genocide, train your own heart today. Don’t rage against the cowardice of others until you stand against your personal demons.

If you want your nation to stand together against evil, you can start by standing with your neighbor at the city council or at the school board. There will be a thousand reasons to stay out of the fray. Don’t let them stop you.

A Lesson on Moral Courage from the Rwandan Genocide

I am racking my brain to remember what I was doing 25 years ago this week. April 6, 1994 was the Wednesday after Easter in the tiny Nebraska town where I lived. I was likely still enjoying the afterglow of my favorite Sunday of the year.

But on the other side of the world an apocalypse was unfolding. Rwandan President Juvenal Habyarimana’s private jet was shot down as he returned home from a regional peace accord. The U.S. State Department believed that he was assassinated by his own Presidential Guard because they were unhappy that the accord required them to share power with their political opponents.

President Habyarimana's plane

Be that as it may, the Presidential Guard working with the Rwandan army and militia blamed the Tutsi minority and began a pre-planned pogrom of arresting and assassinating political opponents. On April 9, a massacre of hundreds at Pallotine Missionary Catholic Church in Gikondo, was the first clear evidence that the goal was the indiscriminate killing of all Tutsis—ranging from their leaders to the youngest children in the arms of their mothers.

The bloodshed raged for 100 days killing 800,000 Rwandans. Meanwhile, world politicians engaged in fantastical word games designed to avoid using the word “genocide.”

The civilized world was committed to the doctrine of “never again.” Never again would it permit a genocide like what happened to the Armenians (800,000) or the Jews (6,000,000). United Nations agreements were exceedingly clear: any genocide would be stopped by the united military might of civilized nations.

Gikondo massacre

The only thing that could keep the United Nations from military intervention was for politicians to pretend that the wholesale slaughter of Tutsis in Rwanda was not a genocide. So, pretend they did. Who can forget the infamous press conference where the president’s press secretary performed verbal summersaults to avoid stating the obvious truth?

This was a shameful moment in U.S. foreign policy. It is tempting to recriminate. If we blame the politicians who stood before the cameras, we remain blameless. But that would be wrong. The sad fact is that the politicians were reacting to polling data from the American people. They tortured language and avoided the obvious because we, as a nation, did not have the political will to stop yet another genocide.

It is easy to take the moral high ground after an atrocity like Armenia, the Holocaust or Rwanda and firmly say, “never again.” It is infinitely more difficult to take the moral high ground in the middle of an atrocity and say, “not on my watch.”

Taking the moral high ground in the middle of a battle is always costly. The forces of evil will always make it costly to oppose them. That’s how they prepare the battle ground. That’s how they keep civilized people sidelined.

They will always muddy the waters to obscure what is really happening. They will always claim that the people being oppressed are actually the oppressors. They will make sure that any opposition to their pogrom will cost Good Samaritans money, reputation, political standing – and sometimes life itself.

Anyone who thinks that opposition to evil will leave the white knight in shining armor unbloodied and unsullied by the rigors of battle will likely never engage the fight. He will not actually stand to protect his innocent neighbor in anything. This is true because there is no circumstance ever where the forces of evil will admit that they are evil. There is no battle—ever—where the victory is assured. There is no warrior who does not risk the loss of everything.

Moral courage to stand for the oppressed will never be the popular and easy road. That’s why courage never consists in following the crowd. Courage swims against the current.

For a democratic republic to exercise moral courage in the face of the next genocide, it requires a majority of citizens to have personal moral courage. If Rwanda taught us one thing, it taught us that resolutions on a piece of paper at the U.N. are meaningless unless there is an equally firm resolution in the heart of every citizen.

Nations and organizations can always weasel out of their words. It is the heart that matters. And hearts are not found in organizations or nations, but in individual human chests.

If you want to be courageous as a nation the next time America is faced with a duty and responsibility to stand against genocide, train your own heart today. Don’t rage against the cowardice of others until you stand against your personal demons.

If you want your nation to stand together against evil, you can start by standing with your neighbor at the city council or at the school board. There will be a thousand reasons to stay out of the fray. Don’t let them stop you.

Breakthrough

Lake Saint Louise, Missouri

Scientism is the prevailing religion of the day. It may, or may not, have more devotees than any other religion. But it is definitely favored in the halls of power.

Scientism is taught in textbooks. It animates our art. It drives dramatic plots from TV to the silver screen. It excites the enthusiasm of policymakers who are intensely busy reorganizing society according to its dictates. And it’s a jealous god that demands unquestioning loyalty.

Like all religions, Scientism is a comprehensive system of beliefs and assumptions that are used to interpret the observable world. It claims certain knowledge about unseen and unmeasurable things that purport to explain the things that are seen. What makes science different from Scientism is the difference between seeing and believing.

Science is seeable by all people, without the need for blind faith. Two and two are four. The sky is blue. Fossils exist. That’s science. But stories about how the sky came to be and how fossils were deposited in the exact order in which they are discovered, that is not a tale that science can tell. Science knows of no way to prove Scientism’s myths.

Nor do all of life’s mysteries lie in the past. Religion deals not only with the existence of lifeless objects, it is also needed to explain life itself. Despite centuries of medical advances that can peer into molecular structures at the sub-cellular level, science has yet to discover the secret of life.

Medical science can cut tissue and sew it back together, but it cannot create the new tissue that mends the cut—only a living body can do that. Science can bring sperm and egg together in a petri dish. But it can only watch and wait to see what will happen next. When some human beings come to life and other eggs remain only eggs, it can predict neither when nor why.

As a father of nine children, I have often heard the remark, “we know what causes that.” I typically respond with a smile. I rarely say out loud, what I’m really thinking: “You have no earthly idea what causes life.” That’s the truth of the matter. Science can manipulate life once it happens. But, it cannot create it.

Likewise, medical science can learn what conditions threaten death. It can then work with scalpel and drugs, pumps and tubes, to lessen these threats. But whether and when a life-threatening situation ends someone’s life remains outside the predictive capabilities of science.

Occasionally something happens that is so far off the charts that we are jolted out of a complacent trust in Scientism and back into a recognition of the mystery of human life. Breakthrough, a movie coming to theaters on April 17, 2019, tells such a real-life story.

It happened on January 19, 2015. John Smith, an eighth grader at Living Word Christian Middle School, was goofing around on a frozen lake west of St. Louis, Missouri. Suddenly the ice broke and he was submerged in 40-degree water along with his two friends. Two of them made it out, but John sank to the bottom.

By the time paramedics arrived, John lay, apparently lifeless, at the bottom of the murky lake. Unable to see him, they blindly poked around with rescue poles. Fifteen minutes had passed since John went under when one of the paramedics followed a gut feeling and probed two steps to the left. There, his pole found the boy’s body.

On the surface, they could find no pulse and his lungs were filled. Twice they tried to shock is heart back to life but to no avail. The team began taking turns at the exhausting task of CPR as they transported him to the hospital.

The doctor on call directed all the medical power at his disposal, to no avail. Still, he was not going to pronounce the boy dead until his mother saw first-hand how hard they tried. So, they continued CPR efforts long past the norm while awaiting his mother’s arrival.

They ushered his mother, Joyce, into the room so that she could say good-bye before they called the time of death. But instead of whispering into John’s ears, Joyce grabbed hold of his cold and lifeless feet and called out to God.

Within moments, the packed room was jolted into surprised action. For the first time since John had disappeared under the water three quarters of an hour earlier, the heart monitor jumped to life.

That doctor later wrote, “I had exhausted all interventions in my scientific armamentarium without even a hint of success.  All the resources of this world were being thrust upon this young man with no indication except the cold reality of a young life snuffed out before our very eyes.  But the interventions of modern medicine are not what John's mother was counting on.  Spiritual warfare is what she called this. No sooner did John's mother call on the Holy Spirit to bring her son back to her than the monitor started that rhythmic beat, a pulse could be felt in his groin and his carotid artery.”

There is no scientific explanation for that turn of events. But that was not the only unscientific thing to happen. Internal organs, deprived of oxygen for such a prolonged period typically fail over the next day or two. The pulse by itself did not mean he would survive.

Immediately John was transported to a children’s hospital in St. Louis where the doctor on staff happened to be an expert in water-accident victims. He had the unenviable task of delivering the sad prognosis. John, “only had brain stem activity, his lungs were full of acid and if he does live, he would be a vegetable,” according to his mother. Instead of signing “do not resuscitate” orders, John’s parents called their pastor.

John Smith

John was totally unresponsive when Pastor Noble, John’s parents and five other pastors entered the room. They began praying when after about 10 minutes, John opened his eyes and squeezed his pastor’s hand. Then he was out again. They kept praying. They prayed for his oxygen deprived brain. They prayed for his bacteria-ridden lungs. They prayed nearly around the clock for an entire week.

Scientism believes that such prayer is worthless. It assumes that God is non-existent. It believes that life is dictated by mechanical rules that are unalterable by any external unseen factors. It cannot prove these assumptions, but it doggedly clings to its blind faith in unbelief.

Science cannot explain why John’s acidic lungs did not kill him. It does not know why his oxygen-deprived organs did not shut down that first night. It has no idea why his brain showed no sign of injury after 45 minutes without a pulse. Over 300 pages of medical records document dozens of reasons that John should be dead. But he isn’t. He’s not even harmed.

Something unseen and unmeasured made the difference between life and death. On that, everyone agrees. Christians believe the invisible and immeasurable One is the Triune God. The doctors and nurses who were eyewitnesses to the miraculous recovery of John Smith have good reason to believe they are right.

WTE: Lawmakers are encouraged to look at federal land conveyance

The Wyoming Republican party resolved in 2018 to “work to transfer the administration of public lands to the States with the stipulation that the States will not sell or transfer to private use without three quarters authorization from that state legislature.”

This resolution addresses a glaring imbalance between twelve Western States and the rest of the country. The federal government owns and controls about five percent of the lands in states east of Wyoming. But in the Western States, it controls nearly half of the land surface and significantly more of the subsurface rights.

The subsurface royalties alone are staggering. The federal government skims 52 percent from any oil, gas or coal royalties extracted from subsurface that it controls. That means the people of Wyoming transfer 750 million dollars per year from the state budget to the federal budget simply because Washington retained subsurface control of so much Wyoming land.

Of course, there is a legitimate reason for the federal government to own military bases, federal office buildings, post offices, National Parks and Reservation lands. In the west, these types of holdings are not out of proportion to similar federal holdings in the rest of America.

The resolution is not about those, but about land that generates revenue from grazing, logging and mining. While the eastern states were given sovereignty over these lands within their borders, the twelve western states have, so far, been denied equal rights.

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) controls 245 million acres of public lands located primarily in the 12 Western States compared to only .03 million acres in 38 other states (almost all of which is in northwestern South Dakota). The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) manages more than 154 million acres of these are in the Western States and only 38 million in the rest of the country.

Surface revenue from these lands goes directly to Washington, D.C. and is not taxable by the state or county. To compensate for this lost revenue, Washington is supposed to remit Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) back to the counties where the lands are located.

But how much does Washington siphon off first? Seven studies between 1950 and 1999 came up with wildly different figures. One BLM study assured us that counties receive three times more from Washington than local property taxes would yield. But the USFS concluded that PILT reimbursed only one-ninth of the property tax value!

Worse still, since the PILT program began in 1976 Washington has a history of not paying even the legally required amount. Currently there are 800 different counties throughout the west that are suing the federal government for PILT back-payments.

Money is power. The more of it that flows through Washington before coming back to Wyoming, the more power Washington has over Wyoming’s sovereignty. The Republican resolution seeks to level the playing field for the Western States.

Three questions typically arise about the transfer federal lands.

First, will transfer of land administration be a net financial burden on the state’s budget? After all, road maintenance and firefighting costs money.

It would certainly be helpful for a forensic accounting firm to get to the bottom of convoluted money-trails. Only then could we have firm numbers. But it stands to reason that the federal government is not currently losing money on their land holdings within our borders. If they were, they would be first in line to transfer that liability to the states.

Second, will transfer of federal lands to the state close access for recreation? Currently state-owned sections in each township currently allow no camping.

These “state-sections” were deeded to the state with school funding restrictions. The conveyance of federal lands would not have that restriction. So, lawmakers are free to write access guarantees in the final law.

Third, might states sell off these lands to private parties to pay off debt?

Considering that Wyoming has over 8 billion dollars of investments while Washington owes over 22 trillion dollars, the federal government has a far greater incentive to cannibalize public lands than the state of Wyoming would.

In fact, in recent years congress has seen three bills proposing the sale of federal lands to pay off debt. As the national debt increases exponentially the temptation will only get worse. Wyomingites who want to keep public lands public should applaud the “stipulation that the States will not sell or transfer to private use without three quarters authorization from that state legislature.” Currently Wyoming has only three votes out of 535 in Washington to stop such sales.

All Wyomingites have a desire to preserve the beauty and the wilderness resources of this great state. The conveyance of federal lands to state ownership is not about making public lands private. It is about guaranteeing that public lands remain public. On that goal, we all agree.

Wyoming should study the stewardship of federal lands

 

The Uinta County Republican party recently passed a “Resolution in support of the conveyance of the federal Lands to willing Western States.” It is not a law and does not specify any of the myriad details that would need to be worked out. It only encourages “all national and state leaders and representatives to exert their utmost power, influence and authority to urge the legal, responsible disposal of the federal, public lands to all willing Western States.”

The idea is to address a glaring imbalance between twelve Western States and the remainder of the United States. The federal government owns and controls about five percent of the lands in states east of Wyoming. But in Wyoming and all states west, except Hawaii, the federal government owns and controls about half of the land. Not only does this affect surface access for sportsmen, ranchers and loggers, it also controls millions of dollars in mineral rights, other revenue streams and utility easements.

Hawaii is no longer included as one of the Western States because it is the most recent state to take the action recommended by the Republican resolution. In 2009, it successfully concluded a transfer of much federally held land to the ownership and control of the state of Hawaii.

Of course, the federal government needs land to carry out some of its constitutionally mandated duties. It owns land for military bases, federal office buildings, post offices, National Parks and Monuments. It also has treaty obligations with numerous native American tribes that require ownership of tribal lands.

Such holdings account for the five percent of federal lands in the rest of America. Wyoming and the Western States have roughly the same percentage of these types of holdings. Nobody is asking for a turnover of these federal lands.

At issue are the lands that generate revenue from surface leases and mineral rights. The bulk of these lands are administered by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).

The BLM controls the surface use of 264 million acres of public lands located primarily in the 12 Western States. That compares with only 30,000 acres of small scattered parcels in 31 other states. That’s a whopping 8,800:1 ratio! In addition, it controls 700 million acres of subsurface mineral rights scattered through 43 states.

The USFS manages 154 national forests and 20 national grasslands around the nation. More than 154 million acres of these are in the Western States and only 38 million in the rest of the country—more than a 4:1 ratio. Revenues from BLM and USFS lands include grazing rights, mineral rights, logging, recreation, etc.

All the revenue from these lands goes directly to Washington, D.C. and is non-taxable by the state or county. To compensate for this lost revenue, Washington is supposed to remit Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) back to the counties where the lands are located.

That raises a question. After receiving the various types of revenue from federal lands, how much does Washington siphon off before authorizing the rest to go back to the county of origin?

Seven studies between 1950 and 1999 came up with wildly different answers to this question. A 1992 BLM study claimed that counties receive three times (300%) more from the federal government than local property taxes would yield. But a 1999 USFS study found that PILT reimbursed only 11 percent of the property tax value That is a 2,700 percent variance between studies!

As for mineral royalties, states are supposed to receive half of all that the federal government receives in severance taxes on oil, coal and other natural resources. But some studies have concluded that the actual number is closer to 30 percent. That would mean Wyoming alone is shorted around $350 million per year.

This is certainly true of the PILT program. Since its inception in 1976 Washington has a history of not paying the legally required amount. Currently there are 800 different counties throughout the west that are suing the federal government for PILT back-payments. Some years the federal government has paid nearly 100 percent of the PILT funds. Other years, like 1997, it paid little more than half.

Imagine if your family budget depended not only your contract with your employer, but also on his mood as to whether he would honor the contract!

Layers of regulatory control and convoluted financing put the Western States on a footing that is severely unequal to states in the east. Money is power. The more of it that flows through Washington before coming back to Wyoming, the more power Washington has over Wyoming’s decision-making process. So, from both a revenue standpoint and from the perspective of states’ rights, it seems right for the Western States to have an opportunity to level the playing field.

While the resolution passed without objection, there were several questions raised. Some wondered about the financial burden on the state of Wyoming to administer these lands. How much does it cost to maintain roads, fight fires, and staff campgrounds? Would these expenses eat up the gains in revenue?

While reliable data is lacking, it’s a pretty good bet that the federal government is not currently losing money on the federal lands they hold within our borders. If they were, federal politicians would surely be the first in line to transfer ownership to the states.

A second question was about recreational access. Currently, state-owned lands have no camping allowed. If federal lands were transferred to the state, would campers lose access? In answer, the attendees were reminded that the lands currently owned by the states were deeded specifically as school lands. The conveyance of federal lands would not have that restriction and the access details would be hammered out by whatever specific legislation congress would write.

A third concern was that lands deeded over to the state of Wyoming might be sold to private parties in order to pay off debt. But considering that Wyoming has no debt while the federal government owes over 22 trillion dollars, the federal government has a far greater incentive to cannibalize public lands than the state of Wyoming would.

Indeed, three times in recent years bills have come to congress to sell off Wyoming federal lands to pay off the debt. As the national debt rises, federal legislators from the 38 states without vast federal lands will face more and more pressure to vote for these measures. Wyoming citizens who want to keep public lands public will find many more sympathetic lawmakers in our state’s legislature than in a congress where Wyoming has only three votes out of 535.

This column could only touch on a few of the most basic issues. I hope it sparks a desire for you to study more. In a state where our legislature and county commissions face constant pressure to increase revenue streams, this is an idea that deserves thoughtful consideration.

As the good citizens of Wyoming begin a conversation about this proposal, one of the most useful things that could happen is to hire an independent accounting firm that would follow the complicated money-trails and provide reliable answers to the many questions raised here and elsewhere.

All Wyomingites have a desire to preserve the beauty and the wilderness resources of this great state. The conveyance of federal lands to state ownership is not about making public lands private. It is about guaranteeing that public lands be available to the public. On that goal, we all agree.