Spectacle of Socialized Farming
All of US
Could you imagine making 45% of your profit & not producing anything. Is that a deal or a new deal! That's the deal Archer Daniels has. They are the #1 producer of ethanol, have you seen any, anywhere?
Corporate welfare is the forced redistribution of public dollars to targeted special interests.
Why are taxpayers being asked to subsidize billionaire sports team owners and millionaire athletes in cities all across America? Why are fans the biggest losers when a professional sports franchise threatens to move unless it gets a new stadium? Sports stadium subsidies are a waste of taxpayers' money. The solution is for fans to own their own teams.
Future historians will look back on the 1980s and 1990s with amazement. Communities that were hard-pressed to keep their schools open or police on the beat nevertheless spent billions of dollars on stadiums and arenas for use by professional sports teams. To put an end to the madness call for fan ownership of sports teams
I found some new sites
Pork Watch
Zola Times
Heartland
Katman
The Spectacle of Socialized Farming
by Michael R. AllenIn its 1936 ruling on United States vs. Butler, the Supreme Court declared that farm subsidies and price controls were unconstitutional. "The regulation is not in fact voluntary," began the majority opinion. In the argument, it was established that farmers were being forced to participate in federal administration of farm programs.
After its initial proposal was rejected, the New Deal Congress drafted another (nearly identical) program to fetter agricultural concerns to governmental control. Under tremendous political pressure to "save" the poor farmers, the Court decided to flip-flop and ruled that the farm programs were legal under the premise that they constituted "regulation of interstate commerce," as the proponents asserted. The latter case, Wickard vs. Filburn (1942), had this outcome because of the rising tide of New Deal socialism.
The Court at that time had defeated much of President Franklin Roosevelt's agenda, and it probably was correct to do so. However, the nation was yearning for quick-fix New Deal solutions. Thus, the Supreme Court justices reversed their previous stands for political reasons. It should be noted that, prior to the extreme interventionism of Roosevelt and the more subtle controls of Herbert Hoover, President Calvin Coolidge had twice vetoed bills that would pay farmers for their surpluses. "Farmers have never made money. I don't believe we can do much about it," Coolidge dryly noted.
Unfortunately, the self-serving political actions of the Supreme Court led to a monstrosity that thwarts natural change. Of course, it is highly possible that had the Court ruled differently in 1942, another Court in the future would have upheld similar legislation. The fact remains, however, that farm subsidization is a troubling premise that leaves few choices for anyone involved in the program. Just as with many other socialized programs, the farm program leaves only two alternatives: eradication or total continuance. The subsidies have fostered such dependency that their halt would leave the farm community in turmoil. While subsidies are totally fraudulent in constitutional terms, it might be necessary to gradually alleviate government controls, much in the manner of the 1995 Farm Bill.
The Farm Bill did not affect the peanut, tobacco, sugar, or cotton subsidies, which are as much money-makers as any other program. Many farmers have gained vast fortunes through the government subsidies that continue to pay farmers for land that is not planted. Senators in states like Iowa, Mississippi, and Kansas commit political suicide if they are too "severe" in the eyes of their rural constituents. Most of the influence comes from agri-businesses like Archer-Daniels-Midland. Neither Democrats nor Republicans are shortchanged, as both parties are equally likely to support subsidies.
During the 1993 floods, ludicrous crop insurance programs reached a new level of oddity: thousands of acres of farm lands, already lying in areas determined to be flood plains, were destroyed and paid for with millions of tax dollars. Where is the justice for other American workers? When sales in the watch-making business are slower than usual, does Uncle Sam pay Timex for the difference between sales in year X and year Y? Of course not, but that would be too obvious. Big business is ever so artful about cloaking its Federal loot.
The farm subsidy program stems from the belief that we are a nation of farmers. This antiquated notion has been factually disproved, yet the government still acts as if there is a need in 1999 for 1899 production levels. This, in turn, creates huge surpluses and enslaves the farmer. A small farmer finds it impossible to enter a system that does not operate on a free-market basis.
The solution lies in a choice between the free market and neo-socialism. America must move forward and allow the market to reclaim agriculture. The benefits are myriad: lower prices, improved technology, increased entrepreneurial spirit, but --most importantly -- the individual rights of farmers would be restored. Has anyone in government ever realized that a 1999 economy does not need the same amount of farming activity as did a 1936 economy? In sixty years, technology has increased rapidly and farming is no longer a way of life for America. It is no longer true that 1/3 of Americans are farmers, so it is blatantly obvious that society has changed. Now, it is time for government to move forward as well.
If a Democratic administration unwisely began the farm programs, then a Republican President's staff totally mismanaged the entire program. At the beginning of Ronald Reagan's first term in 1981, farmers received a total of $9.8 billion in aid. By 1986, the farm aid programs totaled a massive $29.6 billion. By comparison, Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC) received only one-third of the $20 billion increase farm subsidies received.
Near the end of the Reagan administration, the President signed a bill that created the Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation, which gave farmers loans of up to 80 percent of their total farm value. The cap on farm value was a stark $2.5 million, meaning that a farmer could receive a government-insured loan of up to $2 million. The farm credit system, which holds more than half of all farm debt, forgave $9 billion worth of farm debt in mid-1988. Incidentally, then-Vice President George Bush won the Midwest handily on the day of the General Election. Is it little wonder that farmers are, as David Frum wrote, "the staunchest Republican voters this side of Park Avenue"?
Recently, Rep. Bill Archer (R-Texas) proposed eliminating the ethanol subsidy by 2000. His call led to protests from members of his party and from corn farmers. Once again, Archer-Daniels-Midland (the largest ethanol supplier) was leading the charge to preserve the benefits not afforded to other industries. (See below.)
The market sets the number of tailors, doctors, and lawyers by keeping up with demand and eliminating the unnecessary jobs and services. There is no reason why farming should not be completely absorbed into the American marketplace.
Supporters' Absurdity
Since the days of the New Deal, the federal government has chosen to be agriculture's primary patron. Through a barrage of price supports, loan programs, and direct cash subsidies, the Department of Agriculture has catered to every farmer or businessman owning a parcel of land. At the same time, other industries have developed and thrived independently from Big Brother and his payload of goodies. In 2002, soybean, wheat, rice, corn, cotton, and all other grain subsidies and controls might expire (although recent disaster relief laws may keep them going). However, certain privileged spheres of farm life are vigorously trying to make sure that they remained privileged. Tobacco farmers, sugar farmers, and peanut farmers have all found enough bipartisan sponsors to defeat any measure that would ensure even modest adjustments to their programs. Another subsidized group whined loudly this week. Startled observers, including this writer, learned that there is a subsidy so ridiculous that one might have not have believed in its existence: the ethanol subsidy!
This is no small potato. Okay, it is to Uncle Sam and Senator Pete Domenici, but to us laymen payment of a $600 million annual subsidy represents a staggering misuse of funds. Budget hacks and supporters of the subsidy have adroitly hidden its presence for years, as no one has tried to cut this entitlement before. However, it was revealed when House Ways and Means Chairman Archer announced that he is designing legislation to kill the monster by the year 2000, with an extended removal plan. Corn growers who likely supported the reform of welfare balk at the thought of losing their own unlawful incomes.
"If it went away, it would be a detriment to this country," said Vic Riddle, a corn grower from Illinois in 1997. The corn growers have now appointed a flack in the House. Representative John Shimkus (R-Illinois), whose other innovative ideas include banning flag-burning, is adamant in his dogmatic support for farm welfare: "Our family farmers worry enough about how the elements and other outside factors will affect their crops." So do us flower growers, but we don't get a subsidy for wilted petunias and trampled acidanthera. Shimkus's argument is a classically facetious defense of the unprotectable. In essence, he is saying that the weather's unpredictability makes farming different and in need of help. Window-washing, baseball games, street-sweeping, building-construction, road- and sidewalk-laying, and the performance of music are just some of the many activities dependent on good weather which have no direct subsidy. The Illinois Republican is perhaps swayed by the fact that his state produces more ethanol than any other.
Also his defense may stem from another fact: the GOP-friendly Archer-Daniels-Midland Company located in Decatur, Illinois processes seventy percent of all ethanol. As to ethanol's superiority, I have yet to see an ethanol commercial, nor have I put one drop of ethanol into any car that I have attended.
Why do we subsidize farms? According to Riddle, Shimkus, and many others, it's because the farmers can't count on the weather and need assistance. According to the rest of us, it's just another case of that contagious and vile plague known as government absurdity.
All Common Law Rights are reserved explicitly without prejudice
UCC 1-103, 1-105, 1-207.
"NOTICE OF DISCLAIMER"
I am not a lawyer and I do not give legal advice! Let me make that perfectly plain, clear and mutually agreed, that, and I repeat, I am not a lawyer and I do not give legal advice! This is my private opinion; I am only sharing information! Notice to agent is notice to principle and notice to principle is notice to agent. For those who would violate my privacy by intercepting this private communication, I fully reserve all of my absolute (sovereign) natural (natural by law) "creator endowed" inherent Rights! I also choose to exercise my Right of remedy In the event that any party attempts to use this writing in any proceeding of any kind! I make no claims as to the accuracy of the information! I could be wrong about all of it! Hereinafter "disclaimer". From now on until further notice the "disclaimer" is presumed in any further private or personal or public or official communication from me to you. "Disclaimer"
This letter open to suggestions, improvements, and comments.
Questions and Comments: Email Katman
Back to Index
