I recognize that I’m not going to be confused with any of the Royal Smart People anytime soon, but I do have a question that nobody seems to be addressing: What with the US budget being so far in the red and the deficit spiraling out of control faster than a three-year-old on a sugar high, why are the conversations limited to a debate about taxing and spending???

When real people get into a budget crunch, they have to look at not only cutting expenses and increasing income, but they also – generally speaking – look at selling assets. Got a bunch of extra stuff? Have a garage sale and pay off a credit card balance. The rentals aren’t bringing in enough to cover the expenses? Get rid of them! Can’t pay the mortgage on your primary residence and you’re hanging on to a second home? Sell the sucker!

So why isn’t Congress looking at trimming back on federal property? There are over 650 million acres of land owned by Uncle Sam, mostly in the West, but all across the country, not to mention hundreds (maybe even thousands) of buildings that could be sold off to pay down the debt.

Let’s see – the debt clock says it’s about $14.2 trillion and counting. How much do you suppose a few acres along the Pacific coast will bring in? A house overlooking the waves crashing against the massive rock formations is likely to rate pretty dang high on the Desire-o-Meter. That acreage will probably be snapped up in a heartbeat for tip-top dollar. Ca-ching! How about that land in Alaska and in the lower forty-eight that’s prime for oil development and mining? Can’t we get someone to buy some of those national forests that are just waiting to go up in flames instead of being properly managed for long-term investment potential?

It seems like a discussion that ought to be going on all over the country. Selling off some of the under-utilized real estate has both short and long term benefits. Obviously, some quick cash is a good thing. A few billion here, a few billion there, and pretty soon the whole economy is looking a touch healthier. Also – less federal land = fewer government employees = reduced ongoing expense. On the other side of the ledger, all that formerly federal land would turn into ongoing property tax revenues for city and county governments. And just possibly, industries like logging, mining, agriculture, and maybe even tourism would bring in jobs and, oh you know, revenue to the state coffers as well. Seems like a win-win-win-win strategy.

So why aren’t we talking about this????