Politics & Power Quote by Ron Kind

Ron Kind’s line is a piece of fiscal jujitsu: it takes a wonky budget mechanism (foregone federal royalties) and reframes it as a direct hit to something voters can picture and cherish - parks, trails, public access, the “America” part of America. The verb “starve” is doing heavy lifting. It’s not “reduce” or “limit”; it’s an image of deliberate deprivation, implying choice, neglect, even cruelty. That choice matters because it shifts the debate from technical policy to moral triage: if the government doesn’t collect what it’s owed, communities lose tangible public goods.

The intent is twofold. First, it attacks preferential treatment for “big oil” without needing to litigate every lease term or royalty rate. Second, it defends the Land and Water Conservation Fund by tying it to a revenue stream that feels deserved rather than discretionary. Royalties aren’t a tax hike; they’re payment for extracting public resources. Kind is trying to lock in a commonsense premise: if companies profit off public land, the public should see the return.

The subtext is coalition politics. Outdoors funding can draw hunters, anglers, rural constituencies, and conservation-minded suburbanites - groups that don’t always line up neatly on climate or energy. In the broader context of perennial fights over LWCF reauthorization and appropriations, the quote pressures lawmakers: siding with industry carve-outs becomes, rhetorically, siding against playgrounds, access points, and protected landscapes. It’s an argument built to travel.