I wonder how much money would be brought in if the Federal Government sold all surplus land. You could exmpt military bases, Federal Buildings etc. but all national forests, grasslands etc would go. Also of course for the most part, they could keep national parks unless the park was just full of unused land.
The Federal Gov’t makes quite a bit of money off National Forest land that is logged, mined, etc. True, that land could be sold, but the logging (for example) is a source of sustained income. Especially in the western US, large tracts of land perhaps could be sold (perhaps with the Gov’t retaining mineral rights). It should be looked at on a case by case basis. Selling “all” would be silly.
Also, many National Forest lands are recreational areas that bring in money. Others provide recreational opportunities, or preserve historic areas and sites, that otherwise would not exist.
All in all I don’t know how much of this land actually should be sold. But, say, we sell half of it. The politicians will spend the proceeds gleefully, and then where are we at?
What ticks me off is that land is still being purchased, set aside, etc. - when we are broke otherwise.
IMO, what we really need is an amendment that the Gov’t (Federal, State, and Local, in total) can only spend 10% of GDP plus any monies needed for active combat missions. In addition, the Feds should not be permitted to raid Social Security, and must balance the budget, except perhaps for War Bonds if needed.