Farm Subsidies
(newest posts at the end)
In North Dakota, Farmers Wary of Cuts to Subsidies (Update 4/5/05)
4/4/05 Washington Post sob story on the plight of farmers in North Dakota in light of the Bush administrations timid 5% cut in the bloated farm subsidies. A few ideas for a more accurate headline:
'Corrupt Government reduces massive Citizen Swindle by 5%, Special Interest Complain'
'Thieving Farmer Groups demand more money to be Looted from Honest Citizens'
'Bloated and Desperate Farmer Groups bribe Congress to continue Stealing'
''Generous' Government might spend 5% less of the money ripped off your family to support a Special Interest Group'
'The US government, with a 'Conservative' 'Republican' President and 'Conservative' 'Republican' Majorities in both houses of Congress, will continue to imprison US citizens if they don't continue to pay 95% of Farm Subsidies'
'Criminal Congress continues to break the 8th Commandment: Thou Shall Not Steal'
'Apathetic Populace Complacent over Continuing Thievery, Seem to respect the Governments right to sell the fruits of their labor to the Highest Bidder'
'Looney Farmer Groups claim Citizens benefit from being Extorted'
'Government Mafia shakedown might be cut by 5%, Farmer Groups Complain to sympathetic Media'
'Constitutional Violation by Congress over Farm Subsidies Continues'
'Congressmen not Seen as Criminal, Reelected despite Continued Public Pillaging'
Besides a poor choice of Headline, this Post article does not accurately describe what is actually occurring or arrive at the proper conclusion - like this one from 'Causes of Poverty in Developing Nations':
For example, the governments of the United States and Europe will imprison their citizens if they do
not pay the hundreds of billions of dollars in taxes that these governments then return to small,
often wealthy, farming interest groups. These bloated subsidies allow farmers to price their goods
below market price (although in reality they are actually above market price), thus preventing
developing nations from exporting substantial foodstuffs to developed countries. These farmers then
donate some of the money the government stole for them back to the politicians that orchestrated the
theft.
This is, by any definition, a criminal act, if not legally (in this case the thieves are making the laws), certainly morally. However, individual farmers actually do have a right to be livid at the Federal Government. Why? Because other special interest groups are, in turn, robbing them of billions of dollars each year too! If all of these thefts were eliminated it is entirely possible that farmers would be better off even without 100% of the subsidies that their political groups have traditionally extorted from their fellow citizens.
In a sense, one can hardly blame the farmer groups; with government so powerful, if you don't have Congress stealing for your side, they'll be robbing you for the other side. In fact, the worst off are those that don't belong to a special interest group that can bribe Congress to steal from everyone else. These unfortunate families get robbed by all these various groups and don't even get the satisfaction of returning the favor! I wonder if the Washington Post will ever do a story on them?
With the Presidency and Congress corrupted and the people apathetic, can the judicial branch stop the madness?
CA
Justice Janice Rogers Brown would certainly try. Justice Brown believes:
Some things are apparent.
Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to
control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets;
unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise
of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched
culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible. <..>
We no longer find slavery abhorrent. We embrace it. We demand more. Big government is not just the opiate of the masses. It is the opiate. The drug of choice for multinational corporations and single moms; for regulated industries and rugged Midwestern farmers and militant senior citizens.
However, Justice Brown's nomination to the DC court of Appeals, one of the most powerful courts in the country, was blocked by Senate Democrats: "Justice Brown, your record is that of a conservative judicial activist, plain and simple," said Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Illinois. "You frequently dismiss judicial precedence ... when it doesn't comport with your political views." According to Senator Durbin, protecting citizens from elected burglars is a clear sign of a political agenda.
Posted 7/6/06 (by Dobber)
Billions paid to non-farmers by accident
7/2/06 Washington Post
Imagine buying a house, or some property, to settle down or retire in, and surprise surprise - the government pays you money. Ahem, excuse me - the government takes money from your neighbors and gives it to you!
Even though Donald R. Matthews put his sprawling new residence in the heart of rice country, he is no farmer. He is a 67-year-old asphalt contractor who wanted to build a dream house for his wife of 40 years. Yet under a federal agriculture program approved by Congress, his 18-acre suburban lot receives about $1,300 in annual "direct payments," because years ago the land was used to grow rice.
Mr. Matthews, an honest man, who probably never stole or lied to get ahead, wanted to do what's right and give it back. Sadly, that's not even possible.
"I don't agree with the government's policy," said Matthews, who wanted to give the money back but was told it would just go to other landowners. "They give all of this money to landowners who don't even farm, while real farmers can't afford to get started. It's wrong."
Posted 7/11/06
Fat days may be over for farm subsidies
6/7/06 USA Today
Posted 12/20/06 (By Travis)
Farm Security: The mohair of the dog that bites you
Dave Barry
Posted 12/21/06 (By Travis)
No Drought Required For Federal Drought Aid
7/11/06 Washington Post
All that livestock owners had to do was show up at their county agriculture office and fill out a short form certifying the number of animals they owned as of June 1, 2002. Short-staffed county offices were hard pressed to verify the numbers. They did only limited spot checks. <.>
Then, on Feb. 1, 2003, the shuttle exploded. To ensure recovery of the debris and pay for emergency costs, President Bush issued a federal disaster declaration. As an unintended result, most of East Texas was then eligible for livestock funds. Denton County's livestock owners collected $433,000, records show.
"Speaking personally, I didn't think it was necessary at that point in time," said Calvin Peterson, an 81-year-old rancher who heads the local farm committee. "It might have been more political than anything."
In Henderson County, about 100 miles southeast of Dallas, Nico de Boer felt the same way. When he arrived from the Netherlands 17 years ago, de Boer had 90 acres, a house, one barn and fewer than 200 cows. Today, he has 1,000 acres, multiple cow barns and sheds, 650 cows that produce 3 million pounds of milk monthly, a BMW in the driveway, a swimming pool, and two more farms in neighboring counties.
The rolling hills surrounding his sprawling farm receive a generous average of 40 inches of rain annually. When the shuttle exploded, pastures were full and there hadn't been a drought or any other type of weather disaster in years, records show. But after the presidential disaster declaration, John Reeves of the local USDA office informed livestock owners in Henderson County they were eligible. They eventually collected $751,083 despite no shuttle damage.
"The livestock program was a joke. We had no losses," de Boer said. "I don't know what Congress is thinking sometimes."<.>
"We registered about a 3 [magnitude] or something," said Don Boyd, a local emergency management official. "We had some minor shaking, some cracks in the chimneys, that sort of thing."
USDA officials didn't check for damage because none of the local dairy farmers complained.
Yet in 2003 more than 200 livestock owners in Whatcom County collected $1.6 million under the Livestock Compensation Program -- one of the largest payouts for a county nationwide -- for the same earthquake.
A 2001 presidential disaster declaration for the Nisqually earthquake had named 22 counties, including Whatcom. Dairy farmers and ranchers in Washington state collected nearly $4 million in livestock funds, according to records analyzed by The Post.
She said some Whatcom County dairy farmers came into the office to report that they had accidentally received government checks. <.>
In still another news release, Brancel implored livestock owners to apply for the money. "If you own eligible livestock in eligible counties you are eligible," he wrote. "In these tough economic times, you don't want to miss the opportunity to receive money to help pay some of the bills."
Wisconsin livestock owners took Brancel up on his offer, collecting more than $39 million. Still, some dairy farmers and county officials were confused about why they were getting the money.
"In this county, we got a lot of questions from producers: 'Why are we eligible?' " recalled Tom Schneider, the head of the USDA office in Manitowoc County, where livestock owners got $1.5 million. "Our answer was 'Because we were told you were eligible.' "
Posted 12/21/06 (By Travis)
Harvesting Cash The Myth of the Small Farmer / Federal Subsidies Turn Farms Into Big Business
12/21/06 Washington Post
Without generous government help, farm-state politicians say, thousands of these hardworking families would fail, threatening the nation's abundant food supply.
The very policies touted by Congress as a way to save small family farms are instead helping to accelerate their demise, economists, analysts and farmers say. That's because owners of large farms receive the largest share of government subsidies. They often use the money to acquire more land, pushing aside small and medium-size farms as well as young farmers starting out. <.>
A March 2005 study by the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City found that hundreds of counties most dependent on subsidies had suffered the biggest population losses and posted the weakest job growth. "Farm payments appear to create dependency on even more payments, not new engines of economic growth," concluded the study's author, Mark Drabenstott.
Another example of government action resulting in the opposite of their intentions. However, this time, somewhat refreshingly :), we can question their intentions as well. Why should the goal be to 'save family farms' or help family farmers?
Large farms are a "rational and ethical" response to market demands, he said. His family has farmed there for six generations, Phipps himself for the past three decades. He owns 800 acres outright or with his siblings and rents 1,000 acres. His wife is his main helper and drives one of the trucks that haul up to 700 bushels of corn per load to grain bins. "Imagine that: Two middle-aged people able to farm 1,800 acres," Phipps marveled. "That's all because of the immense technology we have at our hands. We are horrendously efficient." <.>
"Farming is a science now," he said. "The image of a farmer in bib overalls bumbling along is just wrong. I'm an engineer, for God's sake." <.>
Phipps resents the images used to evoke sympathy for farmers. "I think they do us more harm than good," he said as he scrambled to finish his harvest. "I don't think farmers are any more special than anyone else; lots of people work hard and don't get help. Why should farmers get special treatment?"
Posted 9/23/07 (By Travis)
Farmers rediscover allure of tobacco No longer subsidized, crop gains acres in U.S.
9/19/07 Wall Street Journal
Three years after the federal government stopped subsidizing it, the leafy crop is gaining new popularity among U.S. farmers. Cheaper U.S. tobacco has become competitive as an export, and China, Russia and Mexico, where cigarette sales continue to grow, are eager to buy. Since 2005, U.S. tobacco acreage has risen 20 percent. Fields are now filled with it in places like southern Illinois, which hasn't grown any substantial amounts since the end of World War I.
What an interesting story, isn't it? Government even when it tries to help, even when it steals money from taxpayers, ends up hurting those who ostensibly reap dividends from its help. The free market helps even the beneficiaries of government largeness, which makes it all the more puzzling that special interests receive vast sums from their respective membership to spend lobbying government for funds and 'friendly' regulations, when in the end it ultimately comes back to bite them. True prosperity will come when individuals reject the claims of their representative lobbyists and trust in freedom.
Readers may recall in 'Amnesty from Government', it was discussed how baring 'illegals' from government funds will likely actually be a boon to the illegals and a continued harm on the regular Americans that receive them. Again, in a sense, the reasoning and logic is opposite of the truth.
I wonder what the 'Republican' Senators of North and South Carolina, big tobacco growing states that were adamantly against eliminating the government subsidy, think of this development? Or are they already onto the next pork project?
Posted 10/26/07 (By Travis)
Senate Committee approves $286 Billion Agriculture bill
10/26/07 The Modesto Bee
But the Senate's farm bill, spanning some 1,300 pages, also reflects competition between its agricultural and its social welfare priorities. The bill's nutrition and rural development sections total 275 pages. The crop subsidy section totals 278 pages.
And what a congress of stinks!- Roots ripe as old bait, Pulpy stems, rank, silo-rich, Leaf mold, manure, lime, piled against slippery planks, Nothing would give up life: Even the dirt kept breathing a small breath.
- Theodore Roethke
See also, 'Harvesting Cash' a Washington Post story collection on agra subsidies.
See also 'Milk, It Does A Government Good'