Let me point out that in a 1991 General Accounting Office report done on the subject, quote, and this is talking about the grazing program, ``It does not achieve an objective of recovering reasonable program costs because it does not produce a fee that covers the Government's cost to manage the grazing program.'' In other words, Mr. Chairman, it costs us a lot more money to run this program than we take in because of it. And I would argue that on the face of it, Mr. Chairman, that that therefore represents a subsidy.
Scott Klug: “Let me point out that in a 1991 General Accounting Office report done on the subject, quote, and this is talking about…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the financial implications of the grazing program and its impact on Western ranchers.
Share
More from Scott Klug
The final vote on W-2 presented legislators a choice. We could continue along a seemingly endless path that had fostered impoverished dependency on government aid. Or we could try a new direction in the hope of leading all Wisconsin…
My empathy goes out to the taxpayers of America who continue to fund an organization that I think largely is out of date... it does not call for a continual support of the GPO. It essentially says that GPO has an even tougher job in the…
What we have just heard is the fundamental argument we always get on any science program, that we cannot cancel it because they just started it and there might be potential, or we cannot cancel it because they have invested so much money…
I think simplicity simply says we charge on the Federal lands what we charge on the State lands. We do not have to have a program that is going to put us through all kinds of calculated relationships based on beef prices in the future…





