A response from Hageman.

 Received this today, a bit latter than expected.

Dear Mr. Yeoman,   On July 4th, President Trump signed into law the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA). This is the completion of the budget reconciliation process, which allows for expedited consideration of certain tax, spending, and debt limit legislation, and delivers on the agenda the American people voted for in November. When the OBBBA was before the Senate, Senator Mike Lee from Utah submitted a proposal to allow for limited, targeted public land sales to assist with housing and community development. This draft provision was ultimately removed from the bill, did not become law, and was something I was never asked to vote on in the House.   While this proposal was never before the House, I did receive countless messages of concern regarding what it meant. Unfortunately, much of this concern was manufactured via misinformation issued by environmental groups who want to “rewild” the West and who do not have our state or our communities’ best interests in mind.    The federal government owns over 640 million acres of our surface estate, with the vast majority being located in the interior west and Alaska. I believe that much of those lands should remain in the public domain. Yellowstone, Grand Teton, Devils Tower, our national forests, wild and scenic rivers, and our abundance of wildlife and fisheries habitat are just some of the amenities that we enjoy and must protect now and into the long distant future.      There is also a reality, however, that the federal government, through agencies such as the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and United States Forest Service (USFS), currently own land that they cannot or will not manage, and many of these lands are now contiguous to our cities and towns and hinder our ability for these communities to grow. By way of example, there is no reason for the BLM to own urban lots in downtown Las Vegas and Reno, yet it does. We have communities in Wyoming that are landlocked by the BLM, such as Kemmerer, who are unable to meet the housing demand of young families and workers who seek to make those places home. I am often asked about how we keep our children and grandchildren in Wyoming rather than watching them move away. In short, the only way to do so is if we have jobs and housing, and that is the exact issue that Senator Lee was attempting to address. It was his effort to begin the consideration of a narrow and targeted fix to address the housing and development challenges that plague the West.    Contrary to some of the misinformation circulated about Senator Lee’s bill (e.g., that it would sell off 15 million acres, that Bill Gates would be buying the National Parks, etc.), he specifically proposed the disposal of only 0.25% to 0.50% of BLM lands located within five miles of existing population centers and only for the purpose of housing development. “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 text) would not be eligible for sale. Lands with existing rights (i.e. grazing and energy development) and lands utilized for recreation were further excluded from the proposed sales. In order to be sold, lands would need to be nominated by a buyer, who would be limited in acres acquired under any single purchase, which would then trigger a consultation process with the state and local government. If approved, a portion of the revenue generated from the sale would be returned to the community to assist with community development needs.    The fact is that the Senate started a discussion centered around finding a sensible solution to the housing crisis in our communities, an issue that is exacerbated by the large federal footprint in states like Utah, Nevada, Idaho, and Wyoming. Unfortunately, there were several groups that saw this as an opportunity to raise money through fearmongering and misinformation.     I want to reiterate that this proposal was never introduced in the House, and I never voted on it.  Senator Lee withdrew it shortly after he introduced it. I was encouraged to see this issue finally receiving some attention at the national level. While we in the western United States deal with the challenges of a large federal footprint on a daily basis, our counterparts in the East do not.  As your member in the U.S. House of Representatives, I have introduced the No Net Gain in Federal Lands Act, which would restrict further expansion of the federal estate, which I think is an even more crucial policy as we assess how we address this issue.    Thank you again for your willingness to reach out to me directly with your inquiry. Please understand that much of what you have heard about this proposal is likely inaccurate and that Senator Lee was merely attempting 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.  Sincerely, Rep. Harriet Hageman Member of Congress

At least Hageman seems to have the courage in her convictions.  Here, however, that provides a reason not to support her in the future for concerned with public land, or the users, of any kind, of public land.

Pioneer Myths, Imported Politicos. Public land sales, part 2. The historo-religious motivation for some (but certainly not all) of the backers.

Indians attacking a wagon train, Frederic Remington.

Recently we posted this, arguing that Mike Lee's background and religion informs his views on grabbing Federal lands in the West:

Lex Anteinternet: Pioneer Day. Pie & Beer Day. Public land sales, ...: Flag of the putative State of Deseret. Church and state should be separate, not only in form, but fact - religion and politics should not be...

In that, we noted this:

One of the Salt Lake newspapers has started a series on this, noting basically what I just did (I actually started this tread prior to the paper).  This doesn't cover it all, however.  It'd explain none of what we see in Wyoming backers like Harriet Hageman.  We'll look at that next.

Now we're taking that look.  More specifically, we're looking at the question of how Harriet Hageman, John Barrasso and Cynthia Lummis can look at the people who voted them in, and say, basically, "screw you and the horse you rode in on".

We'll note first that we don't think the answer is the same for all three of them.

Let's start with Hageman.

Hageman, unlike Mike Lee, is not a Mormon. For that matter, neither are Barrasso or Lummis (although we'll note that Barrasso's religious history should inform our views on him.  Indeed, it's difficult to learn much about Hageman's religious background at all.  Sometimes she's listed as a "Protestant", which she no doubt is, but that doesn't mean much in this context, as that category includes such things as Anglo Catholics and Missouri Synod Lutherans, to liberal Episcopalians.  It also includes the vast numbers of various small Protestant churches that often ignore vast tracts of American Christianity while being either very conservative or very liberal on things they pay attention to.  Hageman never really says what her Protestantism is allied to, or where she attends church, or if she even does.  One biography says she's a "non denominational" Christian, which fits in well with the far right she's part of.  A slight clue of her views is that she's married to a Cheyenne lawyer who is much older than she is with nearly twenty years on her age and who had a prior marriage.  They have no children.  Those last two items pretty much take her out of the Apostolic Christianity category, and out of those Protestant churches that are close to Apostolic Christianity.

If Hageman has no children, what she has is the weak tea of a career, the thing feminist sold on women as the fulfillment of their testimony and which, just as with men, turned out to be a fraud foisted upon them, and which continues to be each year at high school graduation.  I'm not saying having a career is bad, but the focus on it as life defining is pretty much living a lie.

What Hageman also has is a history.

Harriet Maxine Hageman was born on a ranch outside of Fort Laramie, Wyoming, in the Wyobraska region of Wyoming, a farming dominated portion of the state that lacks public lands and which is unique in many ways.  Her father was  James Hageman, who served as a longtime Republican member of the Wyoming House of Representatives until his death in 2006.  She is a fourth generation Wyomingite, descending from James Clay Shaw, who moved to Wyoming Territory from Texas in 1878.  Harriet is one of six siblings.  Her brothers are Jim Hageman, Dewey Hageman, and Hugh Hageman,   Her sisters are Rachel Hageman Rubino and Julie Hageman.  Rachel Rubio passed away in 2024, shortly after Harriet was elected to Congress.  One of her kids is a lawyer. The Hand That Rocks the Cradle was read at her funeral.¹

When Harriet ran for Governor, all three of her brothers, but not her sisters, were included in a video talking about how much she loved people, and how family was central to her.  Maybe all that is true, but here's where the story, from our prospective, gets a bit interesting.  

Hageman went to Casper College on an ag scholarship.  Indeed, she was at CC at the same time I was.  From there, like me, she went on to US, and ultimately on to law school.

She didn't go on to the ranch, or a career in agriculture.

I guess I didn't either, but my story is the story of early death, which intervenes with our desires and which determines our path in life more than we care to admit.  I don't know what Harriet's story is, but I would note that as a rule, from her generation, daughters of ranchers weren't going back to the family ranch after high school graduation.  It wasn't that they would not, it was that they could not.  Those that retained a role in agriculture did so through the result of marriage, often knowing men who were farmers and ranchers.  Indeed, off hand, the few daughters of farmers or ranchers I know who ended up in agriculture ended up in it in just that fashion.

Hugh Hageman ended up in ranching.  Dewey Hageman seems to has well.  Jim Hageman seems to have as well, or at least he's still in the Ft. Laramie area.  In the video, all three really look like ranchers.

When I was growing up, as noted, women didn't end up in ranching except through marriage.  Usually no effort was made whatsoever to try to incorporate them into a ranching future.  Quite a few times, quite frankly, they were expected to marry into a ranching family, but even by the 1980s things had turned to where that was no longer the case, and many started to move into other careers.  Law has always been a really popular career for ranchers and farmers to send their children into, as basically farmers and ranchers don't believe that lawyers work.  Indeed, for the most part, they don't believe people in town actually work either.

Jim Hageman, the father of the family, himself came from a large ranching family in Converse County.  In the near hagiographies written about his daughter, it's noted how he built the ranch from nothing, but frankly, that's just not true.  He was born in an era in which the younger sons of ranchers could still secure ranch land, with help through loans and loan programs.  Now that's impossible.

But that puts Harriet straight into the Wyoming agricultural family myth.

I love ranching, as anyone here can tell.  But I'm a realist, and perhaps a cynic.  My own family has been in the region since at least 1879.  Hageman's, apparently, since 1873.  People who came out here didn't do so because, usually, they were wealthy, although some did, which is another story.  Rest assured the progenitor of the Hageman family in Wyoming, a Clay, wasn't.

What they were, however, were beneficiaries of one of the largest social welfare programs in American history, maybe the largest.  In 1873 the genocidal aspect of that program was still well under way.  Basically, the US used the Army to remove, at gunpoint, the native inhabitants and corral them into largescale concentration camps and then gave the land away to those willing to engage in agriculture.  Most of those who took up the opportunity were dirt poor.   The program was kept up and running until 1932, at which time the Taylor Grazing Act was thankfully passed and the land preserved.  

Homesteading was very hard and difficult work and the majority of homesteads failed.  But still, it wasn't as if homesteaders came into "virgin" lands and tamed it with their own two bare hands.  The government removed or killed the original inhabitants.  In many areas, the government built large-scale irrigation projects for the new ones, at government expensive.  Homesteaders were admirable in many ways, but they weren't without assistance.

James Hageman was born in 1930, which means when he was first starting his ranching life, land was still affordable, something that ceased to be the case in the 1980s but which would still have somewhat been the case when Harriet's brothers were entering their adult lives.  Most men from ranch families tried to stay in ranching, if they could.  Most still do.  When you meet somebody who talks about having grown up on a ranch, but isn't in ranching, it's because the "ranch" was a 20 acre plot outside of town (not a ranch) or because they were left with no alternative.

What those left with no alternative were given, so that their older brothers could carry on without trouble, was what English "Remission Men" were given in earlier eras. . . something else to do.  In a lot of cases, that something else was a career in law or medicine.

That's what Harriet got.

Well, what does that tell us?

Well, quite a lot.  A girl from a ranching family who had nowhere to go, she had to marry into agriculture or pursue a career.  While I knew her when she was young, a bit, I don't know if there was every a ranching suitor.  It wouldn't surprise me at all if there had been, as the tobacco chewing young Hageman was quite cute and very ranchy.

Well, whatever the case was then, she ended up with what lawyers call a boutique firm and made it the focus of her life, seemingly.  She ultimately married a lawyer twenty years her senior, more or less, and they didn't have a family for whatever reason.  Frankly, it's sad.

She was also left with a heritage that focused on the frontier pioneer myth.

Lots of ranch families have that, and in their heart of hearts believe they should have been given their public lands they were leasing by right, even though they couldn't afford it then, and they couldn't now.  They often don't believe that other people really work, as they falsely believe that their own work is exceptionally hard.  Many believe, at least in the back of their minds, that they are the population of the state, and those who aren't in agriculture are only able to get by as agriculture supports them.

It's a false, but deeply held, narrative.

And hence Hageman's, in my view, desire to transfer public lands from the Federal Government.  In her  mind, I suspect, those lands somehow, magically, go write to farmers and ranchers who, in her view, probably, rightfully deserve them.

That's not, of course, what would happen.  It'd actually destroy ranching.  But being from the  Wyobraska wheat belt, where most agriculture is farming, and the land is already publicly held, she doesn't realize it.

And she hasn't been on the farm, really, since sometime in the late 1970s or early 80s, at least in the sense we're talking about.

The whole thing is really sad, quite frankly.  But personal grief shouldn't make for bad public policy.

What's the deal with Lummis and Barrasso.

Let's take Barrasso up first.

Barrasso isn't a Wyomingite and its an open question to what extent he identifies with the state or its people at all. He's from Reading Pennsylvania, and the son of an Italian American cement finisher who had left school after 9th grade and an Italian American mother.  He was born in 1952, putting him solidly in the Baby Boomer generation. The beneficiary of a Catholic education, he came here as a surgeon.  

He's nearly the archetypical Baby Boomer, and in more ways than meets the eye. But to start off with, he was the child of hardworking blue collar Italians from the Catholic Ghetto who were probably bound and determined not to see him suffer they way they had, so they aimed for the blue collar mid Century minority's dream. . . send your kids into a profession and they'd really be something.  Hence why there were so many Irish American, Italian American and Jewish American lawyers and doctors.

But a lot of that dream really went awry.

Dr. Barrasso and his first wife Linda had two children.  His ex wife has had a local public life, but remains pretty quiet about their marriage.  She remarried to a local lawyer.  

Barrasso remarried too to a widely loved local woman who had been to law school, but who was not barred. She's since tragically died of brain cancer.  I knew her before their marriage.

None of this is facially surprising or atypical, but in context, its' revealing.  Barrasso's early connection with Wyoming was professional.  That's why he came here.  And his early life has the appearance of being very Catholic. That is significant.

It's significant in that when Barrasso was growing up, Catholics did not divorce easily and bore the brunt of having done so for the rest of their lives.  In my family, back before World War One, or around it, one of my mother's uncles divorced and remarried and the relationship with the family was completely severed.  Apparently it was later somewhat repaired, but only somewhat.  Leaving a spouse and leaving the faith was a betrayal.  It's still not taken lightly by serious Catholics.

But seriousness was not what the Baby Boomer generation was about.  It was about "me".   The couple divorced, for some reason, and he remarried.  The whys of the topic were never raised in his political career as post 1970s, that isn't done.

It probably should be.

Barrasso has pursued his political career the way it seems he pursued his life.  He compromised.  He compromised on his faith (he's now a Presbyterian) and he's compromised in his political views.  He was a moderate, but now is Trump's lap dog.  His views change when they need to change.  Apparently here, he thought it better to side with Lee and stay as quite as possible.

What about Lummis?

I know very little about Cynthia Lummis, which frankly is fairly typical of Wyomingites.  He website says she was born on a Laramie County ranch, but Wikipedia just states Cheyenne.  Her father was active in Republican politics and she, a lawyer, was elected state treasurer at one point.  Like Hageman, she has an agricultural degree.  She's a Missouri Synod Lutheran, which puts her in a very conservative branch of the Lutheran faith, but that appears to have no bearing on this matter.

She tends to stay out of public view for the most part.

On the public lands matter, her connection with a southeast Wyoming ranch may indicate something. As noted here, there's very little public land in the eastern part of Wyoming.  But overall, we just don't know very much about her.  She's basically a legacy of an earlier era in Wyoming when we didn't feel it was important to really know too much about a person.

Maybe we should.

Footnotes:

1.  Blessings on the hand of women!

Angels guard its strength and grace,

In the palace, cottage, hovel,

Oh, no matter where the place;

Would that never storms assailed it,

Rainbows ever gently curled;

For the hand that rocks the cradle

Is the hand that rules the world.

Infancy's the tender fountain,

Power may with beauty flow,

Mother's first to guide the streamlets,

From them souls unresting grow—

Grow on for the good or evil,

Sunshine streamed or evil hurled;

For the hand that rocks the cradle

Is the hand that rules the world.

Woman, how divine your mission

Here upon our natal sod!

Keep, oh, keep the young heart open

Always to the breath of God!

All true trophies of the ages

Are from mother-love impearled;

For the hand that rocks the cradle

Is the hand that rules the world.

Blessings on the hand of women!

Fathers, sons, and daughters cry,

And the sacred song is mingled

With the worship in the sky—

Mingles where no tempest darkens,

Rainbows evermore are hurled;

For the hand that rocks the cradle

Is the hand that rules the world.

Related threads:

Pioneer Day. Pie & Beer Day. Public land sales, part 1. The historo-religious motivation for some (but certainly not all) of the backers.

Labels: 1838 Mormon War, 1840s, 1847, 1890s, 1896, Fr. Hugh Barbour, Harriet Hageman, Mormon, Pioneer Day, polygamy, religion, Second Great Awakening, State of Deseret, Third Great Awakening, Utah War, WASP

Wars on the West

Wars on the West

A Lummis reply.

Well, now that the Big Ugly moved on the House and its safe to say something, I received an emailed letter from Sen. Lummis.

It stated:

Senator Cynthia Lummis State of Wyoming (202) 224-3424 www.lummis.senate.gov

July 2, 2025 Yeoman Dear Yeoman: Thank you for contacting me about public lands. As you know, Wyoming and other western states are blessed with beautiful public lands that offer endless opportunities for outdoor enthusiasts. The outdoor recreation industry also generates thousands of jobs and millions of dollars in revenue for our state.  The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is responsible for administering federal lands to support a range of uses, including for commercial, recreation, and conservation activities. Currently, BLM manages over 245 million acres of land, primarily in the 11 westerns states. In Wyoming alone, the BLM manages over 18.5 million acres, or 48% of the state’s land.  While the BLM is generally mandated by Congress to retain public lands in public ownership, under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), the agency may dispose of lands on a case-by-case basis and deemed in the public interest. FLPMA outlines the criteria for these land dispositions, allowing the sale of lands that are difficult and uneconomic for BLM or other agencies to manage, are no longer needed for the purpose it was acquired for, or would serve important public objectives, such as establishing houses, parks or schools. Recently, Democrats have mischaracterized multiple proposals and put forward bad faith efforts to obstruct President Trump’s agenda, rather than protect our federal lands as they claim. One example was a proposed amendment by the U.S. House Natural Resource Committee that would have allowed for the sale of less than 1% of federal lands in Utah and Nevada. This would have allowed those states to utilize underused parcels for economic development, a reservoir, vital infrastructure projects, and the expansion of an airport. However, this was mischaracterized by Democrats as an attempt to privatize land.  I am aware of a proposal from Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) that would require BLM to establish a robust public nomination and identification process to identify underutilized federal land near existing infrastructure to address the current housing crisis. I understand the proposal would focus on less than 0.5% of BLM land in 11 western states and would include protections for existing rights and uses like grazing permits, mineral leases, mining claims, and special use authorizations. Ultimately, this proposal was not included in the Senate budget reconciliation package. It is one of my top priorities to maintain and improve public access on public lands for activities such as hunting, fishing, snowmobiling, hiking, and biking. However, we must address the significant challenges for local communities, state government, and efficient land management practices that comes from federal ownership of nearly half of all Western land. It is important that we empower Wyoming-based stakeholders and local experts to enact thoughtful management systems that serve our communities while protecting our national treasures. I welcome the opportunity to communicate with you regarding issues impacting Wyoming. Please do not hesitate to contact my office if I can ever be of any assistance. Kind regards, Cynthia M. Lummis United States Senator

Once again, everything is reduced to the Big Bad Democrats are picking on us wee little Republicans, lying, stealing our lunches, etc.

Horseshit.

I've read these bills.  I will contact Sen. Lummis, but part of the reason I will is to state that without a massive public retraction on this, I won't be casting any votes for her if she seeks to retain her job in the future.

I'd also note, for somebody accusing the Democrats of lying, there's a lie in here. The Lee bill didn't pertain to just Nevada and Utah, but everywhere with public land save for Montana.

Conservative Wyoming couldn’t stomach Republican public land sale

Conservative Wyoming couldn’t stomach Republican public land sale: In the state where Trump won by the largest margin in the 2024 election, grassroots unity helped keep public lands off the auction block.

Common assumptions that may make an a**. . . well you get it. Economics.

As the Big Ugly is debated in Congress, I keep hearing a set of assumptions thrown around as if they're truths.

In each case, there's no reason to believe that they are.

The first one is that "the government is too big"?  Oh? What's the right size government.

Republicans like to claim that the best government is the one that governs the least, but they've never put that into practice. They aren't right now.  If you have masked Geheime Staatspolizei running around, you are definitely trying to govern.

They'd reply, as Mike Lee did the other day, that they're against faceless bureaucrats who are responsive to elected officials, which is pretty rich for a guy acting like he's the Senator from Deseret rather than Utah.

Anyhow, for a country of 300,000,000 what is the right size government?

Nobody seems to have an answer.

It's likely one, fwiw, that not only has more immigration officers, but more social security employees, and more IRS employees.  The military, which nobody is proposing to shrink, probably doesn't need to be anywhere near its current size.

Speaking of the IRS, we also hear that "Americans are overtaxed". This is actually complete crap.

The big problem in the US economy today is that Americans are grossly undertaxed but still want a government that would have to be funded by a lot more taxes.  Still, Americans believe they're heavily taxed.

I once had a die hard GOP Trumpee tell me that Americans paid the highest income tax rate in the world.  When I challenged him on it, he looked it up right then on his computer and was stunned.

Frankly, the wealthy should pay a lot more taxes than they do.

An outright myth is the trickle down economic theory that Republicans have revived.  Tax breaks for the wealthy don't trickle down.  It's well demonstrated.

Another one is that you can grow your way out of a budget deficit. We know that you can't. And yet I heard Mike Johnson claim that we surely would do just that if the Big Ugly was passed.

Johnson is a smart man.  He knows better, which either shows that he's sipping Sazerac with his coffee, willfully deluding himself, or flat out lying.  

A secretly held one that causes people like Grover Norquist to wake up in the middle of the night cackling is that you can starve the government into being smaller.  Newt Gingrich believed that.  It just doesn't happen. 

The rude truth of the matter is that the deficit has been too high for many years, but it really started ballooning during  Trump I.  Yes, it ballooned further during Biden's presidency.  The Trumpites plan to balloon it to the point that will cause a fiscal crisis, there's no doubt about it.

The Republicans voting for the Big Ugly know this. They'll either be dead before it matters, or are just hoping somebody else will come around and fix the budget after they've killed the government back to 1914 levels.  Why?

Well, um. . .the government is too big. . . and taxes are too high. . . and 1914 was a perfect year. . .