Call your people in Congress today and inform them you are opposed.
If you live in Wyoming, inform them that they better start putting in their resumes for post Congressional punditry right now, as you'll not vote for them for anything ever again. They aren't representing you if they vote for this.
From the CST:
Barrasso and Sen. Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyoming, did not oppose the original proposal, though Republican senators from Montana and Idaho did. But Wyoming’s congressional delegation heard concerns from a range of constituents. State Rep. Andrew Byron, R-Hoback, is among the Teton County residents making their voices heard opposing the proposed federal public lands sale.
Byron overnighted two letters to Barrasso and Lummis on Friday and emailed their chiefs of staff . By Saturday afternoon, he was on the phone with Barrasso. He said he has yet to receive a response from Lummis and her office.
Byron said Tuesday that he and Barrasso had a productive conversation, but the senator “downplayed” the concerns brought to him. Although Barrasso didn’t reveal his position on the public lands sale, Byron said Barrasso didn’t share his sense of urgency.
They're disregarding the voters.
Send them home if they don't correct this.
They're counting on us forgetting this, and there's some outside incentive, or fear, for them ignoring us. We need to be the bigger incentive, and they need to fear for their positions and reputations.
Related threads:
And makes absurd statements about murders.
.jpg)
Utah, make this guy go home, or at least get him out of Congress.
Mike Lee is like the cook who keeps putting nuts in fudge. You tell them it's an infamnia, but they insist on doing it anyway, and telling you that you'll like it.
"It's only a few. . . ". "They're not peanuts, they're walnuts. . . " "You can pick them out. . . ".
It's disgusting, and you don't want it.
Lee went from aggressively trying to get a public land sales provision in the Big Ugly Bill only to meat a firestorm of opposition, from the right and left, about it. Ultimately he started scaling it back before the Senate Parliamentarian pulled it, either because it was genuinely against Senate Rules or in order to keep people like John Barrasso from having to commit on it.
Lee, however, hasn't give up. He's telling his opponents, which includes nearly everyone (but not Wyoming Congress woman Harriet Hageman) that he's "listened" and is coming back with a bill we'll all like.
Nobody is going to like this.
This is really bizarre at this point. Lee is choosing a massively unpopular bill as his hill to die on, and politically, it might do that. A former Utah Congressman went down in flames and had to resign over similar efforts a decade ago.
What's up with Lee?
Well, I have one theory I'll write another post on, on Lex Anteinternet.
But all the reasons given for this are, well, crap.
Things are changing, albeit slowly, in Utah. Lee's seat is probably safe, but maybe not as safe as he thinks. The seats of other Republicans supporting this idea are not safe. Barrasso has laid low during the storm, Lummis came out for it early on, and Hageman is all in. Hageman may very well have ended her political career by going so.
Suffice it to say, however, until the nut fudge gets thrown up against the wall and the cook loose cooking privildges, somebody is going to try to keep serving it.
However, Lee still promises a new provision.
Senate referee rules out public land sales in megabill
This is one of those areas which Mike Lee imagines will benefit from his land sale provision:
Teton County Wants Same Federal Land Sale Exemption Montana Got Teton County commissioners have sent a letter to Wyoming’s congressional delegation asking that federal lands in the county be exempt from any proposed sale. Montana got an exemption, and Teton
Wyomingites don't want this. Teton County, which has a housing problem (caused by the super wealthy) doesn't want it.
When will we see Hageman, Barrasso and Lummis begin to reflect what Wyoming wants?
Totally unacceptable.
Housing prices are crushing families and keeping young Americans from living where they grew up. We need to change that.
Thanks to YOU—the AMERICAN PEOPLE—here’s what I plan to do:
1. REMOVE ALL Forest Service land. We are NOT selling off our forests.
2. SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE the amount of BLM land in the bill. Only land WITHIN 5 MILES of population centers is eligible.
3. Establish FREEDOM ZONES to ensure these lands benefit AMERICAN FAMILIES.
4. PROTECT our farmers, ranchers, and recreational users. They come first.
Yes, the Byrd Rule limits what can go in the reconciliation bill, but I’m doing everything I can to support President Trump and move this forward.
Stay tuned. We’re just getting started.
Lee is in real trouble. This proposal is unacceptable. No sales of public lands should be allowed, and Lee needs to be voted out of office.
Sen. Lee is apparently offering something, but it's not clear what, and the opposition is saying no. I'm saying no as well. I adamantly opposed transferring public lands away from public hands.
Congressman Hageman responded, or somebody working for her did, to a letter I wrote. It may of course be a form letter.
Dear Mr. Yeoman
Congress is currently in the budget reconciliation process, which allows for expedited consideration of certain tax, spending, and debt limit legislation. The House recently passed its version of the bill, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), which now awaits Senate consideration. Those Senate committees that received reconciliation instructions pursuant to H.Con.Res.14 have begun releasing legislative text for reconciliation consideration, but I want to note that such materials are not the final bill. These committee proposals must still be reviewed by the Senate parliamentarian for compliance with the Byrd rule and then pass the entire Senate to officially become part of the reconciliation bill. Such bill will then come back to the House for consideration in relation to what we passed earlier.
On June 11, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee released legislative text to be considered as part of Senate Republicans’ budget reconciliation bill. As you have noted, Subtitle C of the bill instructs the Director of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Chief of the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) to identify not less than 0.50 percent and not more than 0.75 percent of the lands managed by these agencies for disposal pursuant to the specific conditions set forth in the statutory instructions. This would amount to between two and three million acres of the roughly 640 million acres owned by the federal government, with such lands to be made available solely for the purpose of housing and community development.
There is an extensive amount of downright flagrantly incorrect information being circulated as to the intent of this proposal, what lands would qualify for disposal should this become law, and how the process would proceed. Most notably, the Wilderness Society has produced a map for the purpose of ginning up opposition, despite the fact that such map has nothing to do with Subtitle C in any way whatsoever. It is thus necessary to clarify the situation, starting with the readily confirmable observation that there are no specific parcels or areas designated under the bill, and the details of the bill itself show that this is a commonsense proposal to identify and dispose of those BLM and USFS lands that are hindering local communities from meeting their housing and infrastructure needs, an issue with which Wyoming is all too familiar.
First, the bill does not propose selling off all federal lands. As I mentioned, it would only make available two to three million acres within the jurisdiction of the BLM and USFS in eleven states, including Wyoming. All such lands that are subject to valid existing rights (including grazing permits, ski areas, etc.), and those that are not located in the eleven eligible states are not subject to the bill. Those “Federally Protected Lands” (for example, National Parks, National Monuments, the National Wilderness Preservation System, the National Wildlife Refuge System, and more as defined in the bill) are not eligible for sale. All the lands sold pursuant to this proposal must be used “for the development of housing or to address associated community needs,” limiting not only the number of buyers, but likely making state and local governments the primary advocates and purchasers.
Second, this legislation does not directly offer any parcels for sale but instead provides for a robust public identification and nomination process to evaluate those unused lands that are close to existing infrastructure (such as surrounding Kemmerer, Wyoming), that are ideal for addressing the affordable housing crisis.
Both the BLM and USFS must consult with the governor, local governments, and Indian tribes regarding the suitability of the particular parcel of land for disposal before the proposed sale. Both agencies must also give priority to those lands that are nominated by state and local governments, are adjacent to existing developed areas, have access to existing infrastructure, are suitable for residential housing, reduce checkerboard land patterns, or which are isolated and inefficient to manage. All sales are to be held at fair market value, must provide state and local governments the first right of refusal, limit individual persons in how many acres they can acquire, and share revenue of the sales with the local government to assist with housing development.
This legislative proposal is now pending in the Senate and is thus not something I am currently being asked to vote on as your representative. This proposal was not included in the OBBBA that I voted for and which passed the House. However, I want to reiterate that much of the maps and information circulating about the bill are incorrect and that the proposal as drafted is a much more targeted approach to answer the needs of our local communities, who are hampered from further development due to the oversized footprint of the federal government in our states.
I encourage you to read the bill itself to understand what it does, and as importantly, what it does not do, when considering the benefits of this legislation. Thank you for reaching out to us.
Sincerely,
Rep. Harriet Hageman
Member of Congress
Well, at least its a response.
A few things.
I've taken at look at the bill, and I had before I received this letter, contrary to Congressman Hageman's suggestion that I, and others opposing this didn't.
This proposal still sucks. I have no interest, for example, in reducing checkerboard land patterns, particularly if we are now able to corner cross, as it sees we can. This land just opened to the public and now
Nor do I have any interest in disposing of Federal lands for an alleged "housing crisis" that largely doesn't exist in the form these things suggest. There's no requirement in any of these proposals to restrict sales of land to those really in need of housing. A process already exists to transfer lands where such things really exist. Sales for "fair market value", in the areas where this would apply in Wyoming, would result in transfers of land in Wyoming for castles for the rich, which I do not support. There's nothing to suggest the land would go to state and local governments given that, and I don't want state in local governments in the housing business to start with.
More than anything, this is the wolf's nose in the door. Once its passed, it'll push its way into the house.
Wyoming legislators begin to weigh in, with lukewarm Republicans, some man Republicans, and an absolute no from the Democrats.
Democrats do have an opportunity here, I might add. One long time and very conservative Republican I know is re-registering in the Democratic Party.
One Republican who is predictably all in, is Harriet Hageman.
The "silly" reaction sparked some rage on facebook. My prediction is that this is the end of Hageman's political career in Wyoming.
I don’t yield to pressure only higher principle. I have said from day one I would not support a bill that sells public lands. I am still a no on the senate reconciliation bill that sells public lands. We did our job in the House. Let’s get it finished.
Ryan Zinke
Zinke's listening to his state. Why isn't Wyoming's delegation doing the same?
Back at least a decade ago I had a conversation with a high ranking member of the Wyoming Republican Party about some really odd going ons down at Cheyenne. He stated, broken hearted, that Wyoming politicians had been "bought".
That's a pretty broad accusation. What he likely really meant is that right about that time the state started to be flooded by out of state political money, and it often went right into the most radical right wing politicians. Wealthy people moving into the state brought their politics with them, and in a few cases if was radically far right. That gave us, for example, the absurd example of Foster Friess and his goofball Dukes of Hazzard campaign for governor.
It also gave us, however, some people who moved in specifically for political reason. Chuck Gray, the family money backed son of a wealthy Republican, who was born in California and went to school at Wharton, like Trump, moved into the state and ran for office nearly immediately. Living in a district in which the long time occupant of a legislative seat died, he managed to leverage a position at his father's radio station into a legislative seat, and then captured the office of the Secretary of State in spite of having very little connection with the state in which he sits. He's been a constant stream of Trump like invective. His seat was taken over by Jeanette Ward, who was if anything even further to the far right. Ward, from Illinois, came to Wyoming as a "political refugee" and had been here so briefly that she barely qualified for her seat when she ran. Her politics were too far to the right for even that district, which booted her after one embarrassing term in Cheyenne where she espoused far right populist, far right Evangelical, positions.
The state GOP was likewise taken over by far right populists, about whom we hear less now, but who went to war with the traditional GOP. They were largely successful, duping, although I expect only temporarily, a large number of Wyoming voters into believing the sh** sandwiches which Trump and his allies serve up as alleged filet mignon.
Tha tthey can be duped is because the state is in economic distress, and regular people don't know what to do about it. Global Warming is real, not some sort of fib, and long term coal and oil are doomed. A large number of workers who relocated form Texas and Oklahoma, and the like, are fairly poorly educated on top of it and are relatively easy to lead by being told that what they want to be true, is true. The agricultural sector, which has deeply ingrained conservative tendencies, is rolling over from a generation that basically stopped its education at high school to one which is now college educated, but in the meantime the older agriculturalist who control the operations deeply want to believe that operations can be run the way they were in the 1970s, and that threats they need to deal with, which include Global Warming and the buyin gpower of the Super Rich, really don't.
Basically, Wyoming's current politics can be explained by people voting for what they want to believe, over reality. Coal and oil are never going way. You'll always be able to get a job in the extractive industries, or as a truck driver, with a high school diploma, or even without one. There are no deep existential problems with the economy here that aren't the result of a conspiracy against us.
It can't be us.
But it can be.
And right now, it is.
A further part of the problem, however, is that the Democratic Party in the state has displayed a level of intellectual denseness that would suck light out of a black hole It's stunning.
It wasn't all that time that Wyoming had a viable Democratic Party that could serious contend for statewide and national seats. That started to change, however, during the Clinton Administration for reasons that are now hard to discern, although the decline of unionized mining jobs in Wyoming are likely part of that problem. Even after that, however, we had a Democratic Governor.
As the Democratic Party in the state declined it took on a lot of the same trend lines that the national Democratic Party did, which has helped explain the rise of Trump. In a state that was both sort of conservative and sort of libertarian, they became goofball left wing as an organization, although not all of their candidates reflected that. Over time, the Democrats never saw a fetus in the womb that they didn't' want to kill, or a brand new perversion that they didn't want to celebrate. A party which at one time was lead by burly miners or grumpy rural lawyers is now lead by a guy who has the appearance of a bow tie wearing nerd.
In fairness, however, the last two chairmen of the Wyoming GOP don't win high marks either. The current one, Bryan Miller, is another of the "I spent my life in the military and hate the government" Republicans. After decades of drawing on the government tit, they claim to know what's wrong in a state where most people don't, or at least not openly.
We may, just might, be at a turning point, however.
We are certainly at a point where Republican office holders ignoring the real views of the state can be exploited.
Wyomingites are overwhelmingly opposed to public lands being transferred out of government control. In spite of that, Dr. John Barrasso supported Federal lands being transferred to the states in the 2016 GOP platform. That didn't happen in part because Eric Trump is a hunter. Barrasso darned well knew that Wyomingites didn't support that, but somebody he was listening to did, as he supported it against the wishes of his constituents.
72 year old Barrasso is in that class of politicians who desperately seem to want to hang on to their jobs in spite of their advancing old age. At 72 he ought to be retired, but he hung on and is how the Senate Whip. Once a Republican moderate, he became a Trumpite by necessity. That means he could become a moderate again, and if the political winds shifted, he would.
This issue is one in which he's hearing from hundreds of Wyomingites per day. He's heard from me twice.
He hasn't responded, but he hasn't said what his position is.
If the proposals to transfer public lands advance, he ought to be sent packing.
70 year old Cynthia Lummis is likewise in the age group that ought to be out of politics. She actually returned to it, however, to take her current Senate seat. Lummis condescendly stated that all Federal lands didn't need to remain in Federal lands forever, which is intellectually the same as maintaining that all privately held lands don't either, something she'd be in horror about as she comes from a ranching family. She's also shown an ability to tack into the wind, however, as she was once a Trump opponent and now is a Trump backer.
Lummis is making sort of a big deal right now about her cryptocurrency bill which just passed the Senate, and nickname Crypto Queen she's been tagged with. The truth is, however, that the overwhelming majority of Wyomingites don't give a rusty rats ass about this topic and aren't going to remember diddly squat about this bill. It'll soon be a "what?" sort of topic.
The public lands vote, however won't be.
Harriet Hageman is on her first time as Congresswoman, having been able to take advantage of her former friend Liz Cheney's downfall. Hageman is the only one of Wyoming's Washington delegation who probably comes by her public land vote, which was in favor of the Federal sales bill, honestly. Daughter of Jim Hageman, who spent 23 years in the Wyoming House of Representatives, Hageman is from a farming family from Southeastern Wyoming where there is very little public land. Jim Hageman was one of the backers of a proposal to allow for the privatization of wildlife in Wyoming, which almost destroyed the GOP during its go around.
This issue could be a similar one.
Wyomingites should make it.
At the top of this page is a portrait of Francis E. Warren. Warren had been territorial governor, and then the first governor, of the State of Wyoming.
I don't admire him.
But his ability to read the political winds is admirable.
The state Republican Party was complicit in the invasion as so many of those in it were connected with Republican politics. Planned at the Cheyenne Club, people kne what was going on. Republican Governor Amos Barber did and had arranged to activate the National Guard in order to keep it from being deployed to Central Wyoming to stop the invasion.
Barber lost his seat following the event.
The Republicans lost the legislature.
Warren kept his.
There's a lesson there for those currently in office. . . and those who wish to be.
Going Feral: New provision in Senate budget bill could put Wyom...: New provision in Senate budget bill could put Wyoming public lands up for sale : Land sales would raise federal revenue and open up parcels ...
Frankly, for Wyomingites in general, and more specifically for the users of public lands (hunters, fishermen, outdoor recreationist, ranchers), this ought to be it in regard to political support.
If anyone of our three Congressional reps vote for this, they shouldn't receive our votes after this.
Lex Anteinternet: Five Republicans listening to their base. : Friday, June 27, 2025 Five Republicans listening to their base. The margin...
