The ‘gub’ment land’ hustle

Even many Republicans are distancing themselves from the Y'All Queda/Vanilla ISIS theater in Oregon. And many liberals have rightly made a contrast with the authorities' likely response if a band of armed black militants would have taken over a federal building.
Beneath it, however, is a longstanding dislike of the federal government by many Western landowners and cattlemen. They wanted the perks that came from Washington: the Homestead and Desert Land acts, conquest of native tribes, land-grant railroads and reclamation.
They eagerly exploited the favorable terms of the General Mining Act of 1872, as well as price supports and other goodies for farmers and ranchers and timberlands in the 20th century. Developers wanted federal Interstates and other highways, flood control and murky, corruption-tainted land swaps of public land. And they demand taxpayer-funded firefighting to protect their "cabins" (read exurban subdivisions where they shouldn't have been built).
Ammon Bundy, son of welfare-queen rancher Cliven and "mastermind" of the Oregon takeover, is a taker himself. He received $530,000 through a tyrannical federal loan guarantee program for his truck-repair business in…wait for it…Phoenix.
Otherwise, these rugged individualists wanted the government gone. Some of Arizona's leading statesmen opposed making a National Park at Grand Canyon.
The notion of an oppressive federal government controlling the land, and hence the destiny, of the West has been political fuel for the Republican Party since the so-called Sagebrush Rebellion of the 1970s. One of its prominent arsonists was Nevada Sen. Paul Laxalt, a friend of Ronald Reagan. Now the issue is back.
Earlier this year, Arizona Republican Congressman Paul Gosar said, "For every acre of land declared public, there is an acre of private land lost, and in Arizona, only about 18 percent of the land remaining in the state is privately held."
He's right (it's 18.2 percent), yet very misleading.




























