So WAC has decided to weigh in on this situation with pic related. I'll quote them…
"As many already know, the Bundy family is leading an occupation of federal land demanding that authorities "restore the rights to people so they can use the land and resources." [a] Ryan Bundy "called for the 187,000-acre refuge to be shut down and returned to the hands of ranchers." [a] Many may also remember that this same family had a related stand off with federal authorities in Nevada, again over land they used for grazing. What people don't generally know, however, is that these ranchers have actually been the recipients of an entirely unjust, tax-payer funded, subsidy program. We're referring to what's called "grazing rights." As we'll demonstrate below, whether you feel solidarity for or threatened by these armed protestors, the economics lead to one conclusion; these men are akin to welfare queens.
So what exactly are grazing rights? Generally, it's when land that is owned by someone is leased to a rancher so that the rancher can let his livestock graze on it. It does NOT mean the rancher owns the land. The federal government owns a LOT of land out west, but rather than sell it, much of it has been leased to ranchers. "Approximately 229 million acres of federal public lands in the western United States are used for livestock grazing for cattle and sheep." [b]
This might seem benign at first, but unfortunately, these federal programs dramatically undercharge their leaseholders. A 2015 analysis found that "U.S. taxpayers have lost more than $1 billion over the past decade" from this unjust subsidy. [c] "Total federal appropriations for the USFS and BLM grazing programs in fiscal year 2014 were $143.6 million, while grazing receipts were only $18.5 million. That's around a 125 million dollar loss." [b] Matter of fact, the programs have lost "at least $120 million annually since 2002." [b]
Had the recipients of these artificially low prices ACTUALLY paid the going market rate for said land leases, "the program would have made $261 million a year on average rather than operate at a staggering loss. [c] This is what we mean when we say these ranchers are - quite literally - profiting off of the taxpayers. They're allowed to conduct business while taxpayers are losing out on the true value of that land. Unfortunately, the situation is getting worse for taxpayers. For example, back in 1981, the program was charging ranchers 23.79% the free market rate. [b] But by 2013, that figure had dropped down to only 6.72% the market rate. [b] As taxpayers, we should be outraged.
To make matters worse, the Bundy family isn't even paying THAT small amount. "Twenty-one years ago, rancher Cliven Bundy stopped paying his grazing fees." [d] And his theft wasn't a small figure. "After years of attempts at a negotiated settlement over the $1.2 million Bundy owes in fees failed, federal land agents began seizing hundreds of his cattle" since they were technically grazing illegally. [d]
CONCLUSION:
Again, whether one is sympathetic to these men or fearful of them, and whether their claims of righteousness are valid or false, what we DO know, from a pure economics stand point, is that they are beneficiaries of an unjust system that has benefited them at the taxpayer's expense for decades."
———————–
Sources:
[a]
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/…/Oregon-farmers-center-grazing-…
[b]
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/…/CostsAndConsequences_0…
[c]
http://www.commondreams.org/…/study-livestock-grazing-publi…
[d]
http://www.theatlantic.com/…/the-irony-of-cliven-bu…/360587/
Personally I'll agree that they're technically welfare queens (just like how the military are welfare queens), but then the BLM has made them welfare queens in the first place.