LETTERS: Federal response to civil matter was criminal
To the editor:
The basic issue in the Cliven Bundy matter is that the federal government obtained a judgment or judgments against Mr. Bundy in civil court for unpaid grazing fees and trespassing, for grazing his cattle on government land.
Let’s suppose that instead of this being government land, the grazing land is owned by The Howard Hughes Corp. (or any other individual or corporation). In this supposition, the director of Howard Hughes’ land management division, in an effort to enforce the judgment, decides to send a couple of hundred Hughes armed and uniformed security guards, snipers and helicopters to the Bundy ranch to intimidate the family and take Mr. Bundy’s cattle. And let’s suppose that The Howard Hughes Corp. didn’t have a court order authorizing these activities.
Would the director of Howard Hughes’ land management division be arrested and charged with some kind of crime because of this undertaking? Would the armed guards be considered a part of a mob or vigilante group and therefore be guilty of the same crime? Isn’t the definition of robbery the unlawful taking of another’s property through violence or threat of violence?
Up to and until the federal government conducted its activities, this was a civil matter. Maybe now it is a criminal matter. Maybe Mr. Bundy should pursue a judgment against the federal government for its outrageous activities.
Then we have Sen. Harry Reid. He says this isn’t over. He says we just can’t have people out there breaking laws. What a vestibule of wisdom and common sense. Please, Sen. Reid, let’s have more guidance from you.
GALEN D. DECKERT
LAS VEGAS
Federal land fees
To the editor:
If I have to pay a fee to enter and use a national or state park for a day, so that my grandchildren can run and hike, why does Cliven Bundy feel he is entitled to use federal lands to graze his cattle for years and not pay any fees?
SHIRLEY O’LEARY
LAS VEGAS
Something for nothing
To the editor:
Enough about rancher Cliven Bundy and spilling blood over his right to use public land — our land. We the People are the government. The majority of us sent our representatives to Washington, D.C., to administer our government.
The very people raging over Mr. Bundy’s right to use public land and pay nothing are the same people who rage over welfare queens. At the very least, Mr. Bundy could pay grazing fees for using public land. He decided he no longer would pay the fees, that he was entitled to our land for nothing. That is welfare. Pay the fee and end the feud.
Stop allowing someone to get something for nothing. Those of us who pay taxes and have served our country in the military know that freedom comes with a price tag.
JAMES J. BEGLEY
LAS VEGAS
Medicare and Medicaid
To the editor:
The Obama administration favors a quasi government-created health care system for all those who cannot access the current private system via the health exchanges. This is a commendable approach until you carefully examine the current Medicare and Medicaid programs, which have been in operation for many years.
The Medicare system is first-class in every respect and could be integrated with Medicaid, with less effort than the untested exchanges. The AARP model is comprehensive and is already in place and tested. It’s computerized with physicians, hospitals and other providers needed to service the patients. Doctors would not need to retire and hospitals wouldn’t have to lay off personnel. Needy patients could be absorbed into the system methodically and cost effectively.
Congress created Medicare and Medicaid years ago, and these programs are already positioned to do the task and treat the elderly and needy as first-class patients.
HENRY GOTHELF
HENDERSON
