Michael Lissack to lawmakers, particularly those who regulate the cattlemen’s business. Between May 1987 and February 1990, the Cattlemen’s Association dis- tributed honoraria and speaking fees totaling $16,000 to sixteen members of Congress, thirteen of whom sat on key agriculture and interior committees, campaign finance records show. Between January 1989 and June 1992, the cattlemen’s PAC contributed $564,104 to Washington legislators. Contributions were tilted toward mem- bers of agriculture committees. What do ranchers want from Congress? For starters, there’s the federal lands grazing program, a taxpayer-subsidized arrangement in which livestock owners get to graze their cattle on govern- ment lands at very cheap rates. In 1991, the Bureau of Land Management awarded more than thirty thousand grazing permits. Ranchers paid $1.97 a month for each head of cattle-about one-fourth the grazing charge for private land. According to the General Accounting Office, a relatively small group of wealthy investors and big corporations controls nearly half of the public lands under permit. A June 1992 report by the congressional agency said that five hundred individuals and corporations-or about 2 percent of all permit-holders-controlled seventy-six million acres of public rangelands. Among the select five hundred: Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Pacific Resources, Pacific Power & Light, Texaco, and a number of mil- lionaire rancher - investors. estimates that the government could be getting an additional $75 million to $100 million annually. But attempts to raise grazing fees to market levels to give federal welfare cowboys a good dose of free enterprise have not been supported. Sound too good to be true? It gets even better. Tax-exempt hospitals no longer have to provide charity care. If an unin- sured worker or homeless person needs elective surgery, yet has no money, the hospital may turn away the patient without fear of losing its tax-exempt status. That has been the government’s official policy since 1969, when the IRS changed its definition of charity, in part as a result of extensive hospital lobbying. Today, many nonprofit hospitals have accumulated huge surpluses. Most of this money has gone to grow the business. Consider
158
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online