Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: FRIDAY, October 27, 1995 TAG: 9510270062
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-6 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
The clash is so bogus, in fact, that the policy-reform chorus is attracting the voices not only of environmentalists but also of conservative economists. The environmentalist National Resources Defense Council is finding allies, reports The Christian Science Monitor, in such places as the libertarian Cato Institute and the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute.
In an era when agriculture has gone corporate and many more worthwhile federal programs are being starved for funds, any farm subsidy is hard to justify on federal-budget grounds alone. But the grazing program is a real lulu. Under it, a few lucky ranchers (frequently, big oil and insurance companies are the real owners) hold long-term, renewable permits at highly subsidized prices to graze their cattle and sheep on federal lands.
At the least, tax reformers long have argued, the ranchers should pay rent to their landlord, the U.S. public, at market rates. And environmentalists long have been further irked by a system that penalizes permit-holders who let land lie fallow (they can lose their permits) and rewards those who overgraze it.
As for the free-market economists, they question renewability clauses that in effect give a near-monopoly to a select handful. Why, they ask, isn't the bidding for permits open to all Americans - including environmental groups, who might to want pay more for a permit not to graze? Why not, they ask, let market forces decide the issue?
Grazing on public lands accounts for only about 3 percent of U.S. beef production and much less than 1 percent of Western states' personal income. If it is nevertheless so valuable an economic activity that it should override environmental considerations, it should not be in need of special protections and public subsidy.
Memo: ***CORRECTION***