During the interview, Miller brought up the idea of a land-for-cash swap:
"I think Alaska ranks about second per capita of the amount of federal dollars that come in to the state," host Bob Schieffer said. [According to statistics by the Brookings Institution, for FY 2008 Alaska received $2,574.68 in Federal dollars per capita, behind only Vermont and the District of Columbia.]Does Miller consider the federal dollars an entitlement?
"You've said that we can't afford all that federal money that's pouring into Alaska. Should Alaska get less money from the federal government?" Schieffer asked.
"I don't think anybody can [claim] - sitting at $13.3 trillion in absolute debt, by some estimates $130 trillion in future unfunded obligations - that we are in any way in a good financial state," Miller said.
"The answer to this is to basically transfer the responsibilities and power of government back to the states and the people. That is really the only answer, I think, out of this crisis," Miller said. [emphasis added]
"As we continue to tighten our belts because fiscally that's critical for the economic solvency of this nation, we also transfer it to the states more power. That means more ownership of lands. It's not a situation where you just yank the financial plug, but at the same time you're transferring over discretion over the use of the resource base," Miller said. [emphasis added]
"In this state, two-thirds of it is owned by the federal government. There really isn't a good constitutional basis for that," Miller said. "It's our position that as the money is restricted, the lands are transferred." [emphasis added]
What about the team? Isn't Alaska part of the U.S.? How would a land transfer, which amounts to a resource transfer (And to whom? Miller doesn't say.), from the federal government help the rest of the country? Isn't this a selfish position?
If Alaska's resources are as great as he seems to believe, how would the transition of ownership work? How would the state survive with raw land in exchange for federal payments? Can the resources be developed overnight?
Miller claims that there isn't a good constitutional basis for the federal government's ownership of Alaskan land; however, there may be and probably is a legal basis. States other than Alaska divided land between the state and federal government as a condition of statehood.
Update: The legal basis for federal ownership of Alaskan land is the Statehood Act which admitted Alaska. Some excerpts:
Section 4: As a compact with the United States said State and its people do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to any lands or other property not granted or confirmed to the State or its political subdivisions by or under the authority of this Act, ...
Section 5: The State of Alaska and its political subdivisions, respectively, shall have and retain title to all property, real and personal, title to which is in the Territory of Alaska or any of the subdivisions. Except as provided in section 6 hereof, the United States shall retain title to all property, real and personal, to which it has title, including public lands. [This is simply a recognition of existing title]
Section 6 of the Act describes how some land that was not owned by the state could become state owned: a) For the purposes of furthering the development of and expansion of communities, the State of Alaska is hereby granted and shall be entitled to select, within twenty-five years after the date of the admission of the State of Alaska into the Union, from lands within national forests in Alaska ... b) The State of Alaska, in addition to any other grants made in this section, is hereby granted and shall be entitled to select, within twenty-five years after the admission of Alaska into the Union, not to exceed one hundred and two million five hundred and fifty thousand acres from the public lands of the United States in Alaska ...
Joe Miller is a graduate of Yale Law.
Updater: Article IV, Section Three gives the Congress authority to admit new states: "New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress."
Will Joe Miller continue to claim that there is no good constitutional basis for federal land ownership in Alaska? The Constitution gave the Congress certain authority ... with which Congress wrote the Statehood Act ... The Statehood Act declares ...
Posts
