Why does land cost so much?

[ScottA]

Enforced scarcity. Not only does it drive up the cost of land but of many resources as well. The US Federal government owns about 30% of all the land in the United States. Use of these lands is severly restricted.

Recently Utah passed a law to try and reclaim some of the nearly 60% of the state the Feds own. http://countryplans.com/smf/index.php?topic=8707.0

You can see a map showing how much of each state the government owns. http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/914109-how-much-land-does-the-federal-government-own

According to the constitution the Federal government is prohibited from owning more than a small amount of land for use as forts and military bases. So by this standard America is 30% military bases.

Over 45% of California is Federal land. Think about that the next time you try to buy a lot to build on.

[MountainDon]

Well, what I'm about to say surprises even me.

I wouldn't necessarily want more land in UT, and other states, in private hands.

At the same time I do not like what the federal government has done in the past decade either. Point in case was the formation of the Escalante National Monument by the pen of Bill Clinton.

What to do?

In UT, in the past 5 to 10 years there are many private developments in places that used to be undeveloped and made for some great scenery.  Several of these private holdings have closed access through their property to areas of public land. Being able to control access to private property is a good and proper right, don't get me wrong on that. But it hurts when the rest of us get cut off from lands we used to enjoy because someone now owns it themselves.

I want to keep everything that is known as public lands, the federally and state owned lands, as they are. I want them to be available for access to the public in general, for recreation of all sorts and yes, open for exploitation of some of the resources for our country's use.

It's been hard enough over the past 20 years to retain access without selling off parcels to the private sector. How many of those public acres do you think would be still available for public access if they were sold off?

[MountainDon]

And even though I would have liked to pay less than $19K an acre for our mountain land I would not want the FS to sell off any of its holdings to the private sector. There's already too many people in those mountains. Yeah, I know I'm one of them, but I do own land. 

[bayview]

   Location, Location, Location . . .

   Check southern - western Texas if you want cheap land . . . Of course no water and nothing can grow and the nearest town maybe 90-100 miles away.   

   My brother-in-law purchased 200 acres on the Rio Grande - south of Sanderson for $8,000.   Head west out of Del Rio, through the town of Langtry (population 145) to just east of Sanderson. . . Drive through 4-5 locked gates for 4 1/2 hours and you will be there.   I needed a starter for my pickup . . . No problem!  12 hour round trip to Ft. Stockon.   Anyway . . .


/

[MountainDon]

You're right I wouldn't want to live there.   


Our small acreage is only 1 hr 45 min from door to door including the 4wd is better to have than not to have, part.

As the man said, location........


But I still do not think that selling off western lands to privatize it is any solution.

[ScottA]

Don I understand you are in favor of the federal governments illegal ownership of these lands but the fact reamins they are not suposed to own this land it is suposed to belong to the people of this country. What we are seeing happen in many cases is small parcels of land sold to insiders that have exclusive access. These parcels are surrounded by thousands of acres of public land that conveniently have no access to the public. You think this is an accident? The whole business stinks. It's not just wild western lands that this is going on with but farmlands, timber and lands with oil and valuable minerals. we have thousands of acres around here that used to be open to hunting that are now posted KEEP OUT! by the federal government. I'm sure you'll feel different when your favorite Jeep trail is posted KEEP OUT!

[Whitlock]

I'm with you on this Scott. I don't think in Don's area the feds have takin over the public lands yet.
There is a ton of land in N.california that the public is locked out of but they own it.Not to mention the land that can't be explored for minerals and such
The land is for the people not the feds let the people homested the land that is not in national parks.
You know they will tax it but hopefully the taxes would do good for the people in areas that the land has been  given back.

[MountainDon]

...when your favorite Jeep trail is posted KEEP OUT!

That has already happened with both privately held land and public land. It would probably totally disillusion me if I began to add up the total mileage of trails lost in the last decade. Those miles are mostly on public land, so yes you'd think I would want to get the land out from under the control of the federal government. However, we (the off road community I work with) has also had some (few) successes. Here in M we actually got an area of BLM managed public lands opened up to OHV use. Not only was new land opened up to use but our 4WD club worked with the BLM managers to layout and sign trails suitable for Jeeps and others for motorcycles and ATV's.

In UT there is an area where the state and private land owners did a land swap. The new private owner closed all access to the public lands behind his 'new' property.

Here in NM we had a 2 year battle with the new private owner of land that has been privately owned 'forever'. He threw up locked gates along the section of road that had been traditionally used for decades by the public. In the 70's when the FS sold it off they neglected to write in a proper easement or right of passage. Two years and $6000 later the courts of NM recognized the validity of the rights of the public to use the road. The road was after all along the edge of the private property; private land on the south and still FS on the north. But the road itself was mostly on private land.

If public land was sold off to the private sector I would expect the majority of new private land owners to close it off. Why would they leave it open to the public? Why would they buy it if they were forced to share it with the public? Selling off any of our existing Forest Service, BLM, National Monument or National Park lands would be folly IMO. You'd end up with exceptionally wealthy folks like Ted Turner owning even more land and holding it from the public.  As well as large corporations would own large swaths of the west and they too would close it off from public use. Where would the gain be?  

And as hard as it is for me to admit, sometimes there are good reasons for some of our public lands to be closed or to have access restricted at times. Mostly that is due to the foolhardy indiscriminate abuse by some members of the public. I've been witness to instances of such abuse and am sickened by it. Of course selling the public land to a private landowner, coupled with their total closure would also solve that problem.

So yes, if you sat the federal government is illegally holding the public lands, in this case I'm all for it.  

[ScottA]

To clearify my position I want to say that, yes some lands need to be kept public. This includes roads to and from public lands but a great deal of land is simply off limits and that is the problem. If this land was available to homestead, prospect etc. the cost of land in general would fall. Not to mention the cost of the rersources that could be produced from these lands. You make it sound like these lands would be sold to the highest bidder. Could happen, but what needs to happen is these lands need to be made available to people who would put it to productive uses. Taxes would be paid to the states by these same people improving the lot of everyone. What we have now is a system that artificialy keeps prices high to help a few at the expense of the many. Think about it. If 30%...nearly 1/3...1/3! of all land in the US was sudenly available to homestead or buy the price of all land would fall to some degree. This nonsense of the world being over populated and too crowded is a myth and is promoted by the same people who keep these lands off limits. I've seen many many acres of once productive farmland converted to nothnigness in this area. People forced into smaller and smaller areas. For what? So a few deer suposedly have more habitat? It's BS and everone knows it. The deer could care less who owns or lives on the land. They keep on doing what they've been doing regardless.

[Whitlock]

...when your favorite Jeep trail is posted KEEP OUT!

That has already happened with both privately held land and public land. It would probably totally disillusion me if I began to add up the total mileage of trails lost in the last decade. Those miles are mostly on public land, so yes you'd think I would want to get the land out from under the control of the federal government. However, we (the off road community I work with) has also had some (few) successes. Here in M we actually got an area of BLM managed public lands opened up to OHV use. Not only was new land opened up to use but our 4WD club worked with the BLM managers to layout and sign trails suitable for Jeeps and others for motorcycles and ATV's.

Whitlock-So the BLM wasted tax money paying managers to layout signs and trails on land that the people all ready have a right to.

In UT there is an area where the state and private land owners did a land swap. The new private owner closed all access to the public lands behind his 'new' property.

Here in NM we had a 2 year battle with the new private owner of land that has been privately owned 'forever'. He threw up locked gates along the section of road that had been traditionally used for decades by the public. In the 70's when the FS sold it off they neglected to write in a proper easement or right of passage. Two years and $6000 later the courts of NM recognized the validity of the rights of the public to use the road. The road was after all along the edge of the private property; private land on the south and still FS on the north. But the road itself was mostly on private land.

Whitlock-I'm sure the FS neglected to right in the easement to keep people off of the public land. Then more tax payers money to fight the public for a right if way to what we all ready own.

If public land was sold off to the private sector I would expect the majority of new private land owners to close it off. Why would they leave it open to the public? Why would they buy it if they were forced to share it with the public? Selling off any of our existing Forest Service, BLM, National Monument or National Park lands would be folly IMO. You'd end up with exceptionally wealthy folks like Ted Turner owning even more land and holding it from the public.  As well as large corporations would own large swaths of the west and they too would close it off from public use. Where would the gain be?  

And as hard as it is for me to admit, sometimes there are good reasons for some of our public lands to be closed or to have access restricted at times. Mostly that is due to the foolhardy indiscriminate abuse by some members of the public. I've been witness to instances of such abuse and am sickened by it. Of course selling the public land to a private landowner, coupled with their total closure would also solve that problem.

Whitlock-You can't sell what you don't own The Gov. dosen't own the land legally.

So yes, if you sat the federal government is illegally holding the public lands, in this case I'm all for it.  

[Whitlock]

Us hill folk know that the best place to get a deer if your staved is in the subdevisions a lot more habitat around the houses than in the forest

[muldoon]

Scott, I agree with you 100% on this one.  I love to fish, and specifically, I love to find places to fish that are close to my house.  I have spent countless hours scouring google maps for waterholes and creeks and natural formations in "public" areas tha look promising.  Half of them are considered parks and several of them flat out do not allow any form of public access.  I was told by a constable that if I walked into one particular park and took fish out the game warden would arrest me.  How is that even possible, the land is owned by the people, how can the government lease small sections of it (an archery club has access to 50 of the 2000 acres in this scenario) and tell the people they are not allowed access? 

One thing I loved about Colorado when I lived there was the very agreeable and open nature of the park wardens.  The land is owned by the people, and intended for the responsible enjoyment of the people.  Perhaps I just got spoiled. 

As for why is land so expensive, I am reminded of the old saying, they are not making any more of it.  Of course if you eer find yourself out in west Texas - Marfa, Ft. Stockton and the like, where you can go 80miles per hour for 6 hours and nothing changes..  well, I think they done made too much of it. 

Aside from this, rural land has been increasing drastically the past few years.  Even as city housing falls, country land raises.  This is no coincidence.  There is a distinct reason for it.  sustainability.  We on CP tend to think we are the only ones who realize the joys of "opting out" of the subdivision focused homeowners association infested neighborhoods in decline.  Were not, were in the second "wave" of the people who are reacting to the situation around them and seeing their reaction.  Yes, people with money will drive prices up to get what they want. 

[MountainDon]

Whitlock-So the BLM wasted tax money paying managers to layout signs and trails on land that the people all ready have a right to.

No the land was undeveloped rocky desert land. Money was spent and volunteer hours used to layout routes and provide sanitation facilities to permit use in a manner that was not going to tear up the land in an irresponsible manner. One of the problems with public use of their public lands is that left unrestricted there are way too many idiots who make a mess and totally ruin it for those who care to be responsible in their use. We have too darn many people to allow use with no rules. That's the way it is and no amount of whining that the feds should not own the land is going to change that.

Whitlock-I'm sure the FS neglected to write in the easement to keep people off of the public land. Then more tax payers money to fight the public for a right if way to what we all ready own.

The money spent was all private money. $100 of my personal money included. For once it was a hundred dollars that resulted in a win. Not a nickel of FS money was used. The FS washed their hands of it, stated they screwed up but it was a done deal and that was that.

Whitlock-You can't sell what you don't own The Gov. dosen't own the land legally.

Should we have a lottery, draw straws for it or have another Oklahoma 1889 style land rush?

[MountainDon]

I guess I'm the odd guy out on this....  I simply do not see how my access will improve if the present public lands ended up in private hands. If someone can clearly elucidate on that I would be more than interested.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Approximately 5 miles north of our cabin is a parcel of 100,000 acres that was privately owned land dating from the 1860's. It was given to the Cabeza de Baca family in settlement of a Spanish/Mexican land grant dispute with the US Government. The land remained fenced and posted as private land until the year 2000. During that time it did have pass through different private hands. The federal government negotiated purchase of the land in 2000. It became the Valle Caldera National Preserve. At first the only visible change was that the signs were changed from reading Private Property, Keep Out to Valle Caldera National Preserve, Keep Out.  Since then there has been very small increases in access to the public. Hiking trails are available, some for a fee. Fishing is available, for a fee. Some of the finest elk hunting is available; actually that has not changed from private to public ownership. The Baca land always allowed elk hunting, for very high private fees. The Preserve is supposed to generate income sufficient to pay for it's administration. The deadline is 2015.

Due to failure so far to apy it's own way, in 2015 I believe we are going to see the Valle Caldera land be assimilated into the surrounding Santa Fe National Forest, or perhaps become managed by the National Park Service. I definitely do not want to see it sold off to a private land holder again only to be closed to public use or perhaps developed into another Aspen, Vail, Sedona, Taos, or other "high rent" area that only overpaid celebrities and CEO's can afford.

If you believe western forests should be sold off to private ownership how do you draw the lines at the National Parks or National Monuments? Why would you draw the line at the Parks and Monuments?


Please note I use the word "you" in the abstract, not directed at any particular person.

[Whitlock]

Whitlock-So the BLM wasted tax money paying managers to layout signs and trails on land that the people all ready have a right to.

No the land was undeveloped rocky desert land. Money was spent and volunteer hours used to layout routes and provide sanitation facilities to permit use in a manner that was not going to tear up the land in an irresponsible manner. One of the problems with public use of their public lands is that left unrestricted there are way too many idiots who make a mess and totally ruin it for those who care to be responsible in their use. We have too darn many people to allow use with no rules. That's the way it is and no amount of whining that the feds should not own the land is going to change that.

Whitlock-I'm sure the FS neglected to write in the easement to keep people off of the public land. Then more tax payers money to fight the public for a right if way to what we all ready own.

The money spent was all private money. $100 of my personal money included. For once it was a hundred dollars that resulted in a win. Not a nickel of FS money was used. The FS washed their hands of it, stated they screwed up but it was a done deal and that was that.

Whitlock-You can't sell what you don't own The Gov. dosen't own the land legally.

Should we have a lottery, draw straws for it or have another Oklahoma 1889 style land rush?

So do you believe that by putting in trails and signs it will keep the wrong doers from not going of the trails and tearing up the rocks and undeveloped desert land?

And you think we have too many people to have use without rules? Come on what county are you from???

"No amount" of whinning that the feds should not own the land is going to change that??? Don you are thinking like they want you to!

I have a hard time swallowing that the BLM and FS didn't spend any tax payers money in the cases you have mentioned. If you talked to eather outfit EVER they were spending tax payers money.

As for the way to get the land it should be done like it allways has Homesteded look it up it was not as easy as some think and you were only allowed so much.

Under the Homestead Act of 1862, any resident of the United States could obtain up to 160 acres of open land provided that, for five consecutive years, the homesteader continuously lived on and cultivated the land. After six months of occupancy, the homesteader could buy the land from the government for $1.25 per acre. After successful completion of the five-year residency, the homesteader paid a $15 filing fee and received clear title to the land. Non-citizen homesteaders were required to become U.S. citizens within the five-year period. In addition, the homesteader could not sell or give away any part of the land during the five-year period.

After being amended many times over the years, the Homestead Act was was repealed on October 21, 1976, but the date for homesteading public lands in Alaska was extended until October 21, 1986. It is estimated that about 60,000 families established homes under the Homestead Act.




I respect your opinion Don But I'm way on the other side of the fence on this one

[MountainDon]

So do you believe that bye putting in trails and signs it will keep the wrong doers from not going of the trails and tearing up the rocks and undeveloped desert land?

In this particular developed case/place, over the past 3 years that has seen real trail development, Yes, that has worked. It's a small example of the respect that should be given to recreational opportunities.

In many other of the wide open areas, no it has not. Ten miles from my home over abuse of a hilly desert area has completely changed the land for the worse. There are trails braided all over the place. Twenty five years ago when we moved here I was one of a handful of users. The trails wound through pinon and juniper, up and over and through sandy terrain. The area was open, with few if any rules. Now some of the trails are a hundred foot wide churned up expanse of ATV and 4WD tracks with many of the pinon and juniper dead and gone, no grass left to speak of. I could go on but I get pissed when I think of what some of the local yahoos have done. I will not be surprised to find the area closed one day. The only thing that keeps it from being closed now is that there is no money for fencing and maintenance.

And you think we have too many people to have use without rules

Do you mean that there should be no rules to prevent anyone from driving their ATV or 4WD through the trees in the National Forest wherever they want to go, just because they have an ATV or 4WD and have the equipment that will permit them to do so? I have no problem with using any road or trail that is there already. I love to do just that. For years one of our enjoyable pastimes has been to find and travel some of the old logging roads. But I have serious problems with people who blaze new trails through the woods. How do you prevent that abuse? Rules.

If you talked to eather outfit EVER they were spending tax payers money.

Of course they were being paid, spending taxpayer  money. They would have been paid even if I wasn't talking to them. I've spent 25 years talking to BLM and FS people. Much of it frustrating to be sure.

But that aside, still nobody has been able to tell me how my access to our public lands would be improved if the land was privately held. I see privately owned land all around me in the mountains. Most, if not all of it has fences, gates and signs proclaiming Private Property, Keep Out. Some of the signs are my own. Leave the anti government ownership / management thing out of it and tell me how anyone can perceive that my access, your access, will improve if the land becomes privately owned. I can't see it. Instead I see more fences and locked gates.

Okay, let's imagine that somehow, someway, all the present public lands are transformed into private ownership. Great. Owning land is truly great, I know I love my land. I'd love to have more of the present National Forest to call my own. But I digress. Let's say the mountain land around me, the present natonal Forest land gets divided up and a whole mess of different folks own pieces of it. Let's be generous and say that everyone has a 640 acre chunk. Nice neat 1 mile squares.

A quick look at the map indicates that Cat Mesa near our cabin would be owned by 6 different owners. Each would throw up fences and gates and declare their property Private. Why wouldn't they? So in one fell swoop the public access would be removed. No more nice trail through the trees. No more picnic spot with a killer view. How is that better than the way things are?

Or how about Paliza Canyon? There's a ten mile route on a rocky, difficult in places, trail through it. It's a load of fun. No reason to travel it other than it's there, it's fun and it's public. Do you really expect that the potential 10 private owners of the land in the canyon would all cooperate and allow public access through the canyon? It would only take one of the ten to close access for all. How is that better than the historic management?

Two canyons over to the east there is another canyon that we used to travel at will. However, a handful of years ago new folks bought the private land that straddles it at one point and fenced it off. Nobody even lives there, but they closed it. They had the right to be sure, after all it was privately owned. How is more of that sort of thing going to be better?

The strange thing is that if I could afford to own a hundred acres in the mountains I'd fence and close it too. Or maybe it's not so strange. I wouldn't want some of the yahoos I have to share the public lands on my own land, tearing it up, leaving empty cans and trash behind, smoking and dropping butts, and trying to drive up and over those rocks over there just because they think they can.


As far as the homestead act goes, as you pointed out, it was amended many times and repealed in 1976. Ford (R) was president. So there is no present day homestead act.

The homestead act was severely abused. Prior to large public investments in irrigation land east of the rockies was too arid to make a farm/ranch of less than 640 acres a viable operation. Individuals acted as fronts for large corporations. There was lots of fraud, but that;s besides the point of this discussion. Canada and Australia had similar land "giveaways" to encourage people to populate and settle the lands. We're no ,longer in the position where we need to seek out people to populate and settle the land. So this is just a smoke screen.

The Homestead Act was the original redistribution of wealth. We redistributed the lands of the Native American tribes to the predominately white taxpaying farmers. So yeah, that was fair and equitable.

[Whitlock]

Don You think that the access to public land will be better off in the hands of the feds. Soon there will be no public land access if they have it there way and by the way they all ready sell the public lands to large mining and mineral corparations from other contrys.

Also when you pay that fee to get on your public land it goes to a company called Reserve America Holdings Inc.
Our we so sure that we haven't been sold out all ready? I'm sure the money goes to line the pockets of a few in goverment.

As for our parks we get to go to see them but the american people are being riped off read this-

How could it be that a japanese company ended up with it.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,972114,00.html


Note at the bottom who owns 20% of our minerals

http://www.ewg.org/mining/report/index.php?stab=US&chapter=1

[bayview]

   I wonder if federal land could be sold . . . Possibly its being used as collateral for debts owed.   (China)

/

[Pox Eclipse]

There is no collateral for bonds sold to China.  They cannot call in the debt, and as the US dollar weakens, the value of those bonds goes down.  The debt we owe to the Chinese is a much bigger problem for the Chinese than it is for us.  The Chinese buy US bonds because they know that, in spite of (or perhaps because of) the current world economic climate, US bonds are still the safest investment.  The Chinese are awash in cash, and they have to put it some place; US bonds are the best option.  The Chinese have very little choice but to loan us the money.

[pagan]

I'm kind of with Don on this issue. With a private owner you're asking permission to use his or her land, and even if permission is granted, it can be taken away at any time for any reason. It's the right of the owner to grant or restrict access to private property. Unless there's been some clear, long standing public use, like with the trail Don talked about, there is little recourse for people to gain access to privately held lands. At least with government ownership petitions can be filed and legislators can be persuaded or even pressured into allowing greater access to public lands.

Having said that, with so much land publicly "owned" an incredible amount of tax revenue has been taken from states. Also with so much land removed from the market prices will go up, not to mention the loss of access to natural resources.

[peternap]

There is no collateral for bonds sold to China.  They cannot call in the debt, and as the US dollar weakens, the value of those bonds goes down.  The debt we owe to the Chinese is a much bigger problem for the Chinese than it is for us.  The Chinese buy US bonds because they know that, in spite of (or perhaps because of) the current world economic climate, US bonds are still the safest investment.  The Chinese are awash in cash, and they have to put it some place; US bonds are the best option.  The Chinese have very little choice but to loan us the money.

Pos...a little off topic but your statement reminded me. A million years ago when I was a ski instructor, I worked for a gentleman named Uel Gardner. (Pronounced Gaaadnaa)
He was from Noo Hampsha also.
Great skier but he like yourself, was convinced the sky was red with nifty paisley patterns. Could it be it really is in Noo Hampsha

[muldoon]

Just have two thoughts to point out.

Don, the government does not have money.  They cannot buy land and offer it for public access because the government does not produce anything.  The money they have is our money, either taken by taxation, or by loans that we still pay either through inflation or via pulling forward future demand.  There is no free lunch my friend.  And if they are using the peoples money, they should not be locking the people out. 

and

There is no collateral for bonds sold to China.  They cannot call in the debt, and as the US dollar weakens, the value of those bonds goes down.  The debt we owe to the Chinese is a much bigger problem for the Chinese than it is for us.  The Chinese buy US bonds because they know that, in spite of (or perhaps because of) the current world economic climate, US bonds are still the safest investment.  The Chinese are awash in cash, and they have to put it some place; US bonds are the best option.  The Chinese have very little choice but to loan us the money.

This is really old and dangerous thinking here.  China has bought ZERO US debt since June/July of last year. 
http://www.ustreas.gov/tic/mfh.txt

Really no one has, its been pretty flat to slightly down for nearly the entire globe.  Couple that with the deficits we are running thee days and our bond offering schedules and then look at this chart again and all the tax increases were looking at should click into place.

[MountainDon]

.... a company called Reserve America Holdings Inc.

Correct. In fact I believe it's a Canadian owned private (non governmental) company. They collect the money, allocate and keep track of reservations, keep some of the money to make their private corporation profits and pay a fee to the Park Service, Forest Service, BLM, whoever they are contracted with. So the government agencies do what many would consider 'the right thing', that is, not get involved in the day to day running of the business of campground reservations and they get criticized for that too.

The campground reservation system was a revolutionary idea back when it was started. Before then it was a crap shoot in many places that you would get a campsite if you showed up at the gates after 12 noon. There was no way one could take a cross country trip and know whether or not there'd be a place to pitch a tent or park an RV. Reservations make trip planning better. Having the system privately run should make everyone who wants to see less government a happy camper. And why do we need reservations? Too darn many people wanting to use the same thing/place at the same time.

How could it be that a japanese company ended up with it.

That's called the free market place, or something like that. Sure the foreign ownership is disturbing in some ways. But in order to prevent that foreign ownership of the concessions (not the park) there would have to have to be a government rule against it. How's that going to fit in with the idea that the government should not have anything to do with it?  

[pagan]

Muldoon,

If foreign investors aren't purchasing all of our debt, who is? I see Obama on a whirlwind spending extravaganza that shows no signs of letting up and I've read a few articles where he's patting himself on the back for spending so much money.

[peternap]

Muldoon,

If foreign investors aren't purchasing all of our debt, who is? I see Obama on a whirlwind spending extravaganza that shows no signs of letting up and I've read a few articles where he's patting himself on the back for spending so much money.

It's not really hard to see how Obama plans to pay for everything.

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama says he did a full court press for a health care system remake because "this country was going to go bankrupt."

At the same time, Obama said in a nationally broadcast interview Friday he isn't worried that his bold reach for a $1.3 trillion, 10-year makeover might cause his public approval ratings to plummet. He told CBS's "The Early Show" that forcing changes in the system was "the right thing to do."

The president also said he remains confident that "if you have a good policy and you're trying to do the right thing, over time the politics works out." He was asked about polls showing his own standings in descent and a continuing revulsion among some elements of the public over the sweeping health care measure.