Subsidizing the not-so-poor farmers
In a comment to my I've Just About Had It Up to Here posting, Cowtown Pattie wrote,
"Give 'em hell, CC!
"Right On Sistah!"
To which I replied with words concerning President Bush's speech of yesterday, and our current national situation, in general. I started out with, "I feel like giving 'em hell, even more, following President Bush's recent address. I didn't hear the whole thing (I was driving and had to short-change the speech); but, in the part that I heard, the high price of gasoline was addressed. It is amazing to me that, when reasonable people find that they are spending too much money on entertainment and it is affecting their budget, they cut back on entertainment; but, when we find that we are paying too much for gasoline, it doesn't occur to our Prez to suggest that we use less. Oh, no. We are supposed to start drilling in Alaska. Bah! Humbug! From what I heard on the news, this morning, the American people are at least smart enough to cut down on their driving. Demand for gasoline is now low! Wouldn't it have been nice for the Prez to mention that we might conserve gasoline by driving less and conserve energy by consuming less? [And help everything and everybody by reproducing less?]
"The Prez did say one thing with which I heartily agree. Now, when crop prices have reached an all-time high, would be an excellent time to trim the farm support that we give to "farmers" who don't need any help. It galls me that wealthy farmers/non-farmers are subsidized."
Note: I may be putting words in The Prez's mouth. While I didn't put the above in quotation marks, I should point out that The Prez may not have said that crop prices are at an all-time high. I don't even know that they are at an all-time high. I got carried away there. (I envy Ronni's penchant for putting in the time to do research well, for zealously guarding accuracy, for giving balanced presentations, and for sticking with her code of ethics. There's no danger of anyone's confusing the two of us!)
Please let me, though, bring to your attention an article carried by the Kennebec Journal last November, Agricultural subsidies take
from poor, give to rich by . In it, Mr Reisert wrote:
....
"In recent years, the United States has been dishing out about $25 billion per year[emphasis added] in subsidies to farmers -- at a time when farmers, as a whole, are doing very well. According to the Department of Agriculture, the average farming household has an income of $81,420 -- almost 30 percent higher than the average American family's income, and the average farming household has more than twice as much wealth (more than $800,000) as the average American household.
....
"Not only does our policy unfairly subsidize wealthy farmers, it particularly subsidizes a few commodity crops at the expense of other agricultural products. The five big crops -- wheat, cotton, corn, soybeans and rice -- rake in 90 percent of the subsidies.
"Thus we subsidize the manufacture of such things as high-fructose corn syrup and hydrogenated vegetable oils, in the process lowering the price of all those "junk food" snacks parents are supposed to discourage their kids from eating.
....
"The best course of all, however, would be to end agricultural subsidies entirely. Wealthy farmers are the last people in the world who need to be bought a free lunch on the ordinary taxpayer's dime.
"Joseph R. Reisert is associate professor of American Constitutional Law and chairman of the Department of Government at Colby College in Waterville."
Let me state right here, right now that $25 billion dollars per year would sound like the huge amount that it is were we not so inured to hearing the much larger numbers coming out of our stupid war.
Another, informative, point of view is expressed in an article that is posted by the Center for Agricultural and Rural Development at Iowa State University: The Concentration of U.S. Agricultural Subsidies, by Bruce A Babcock. I won't use it extensively because Mr Babcock relies upon three charts--charts that I've been unable to detect in the posting.
....
"Most of U.S. agriculture receives little or no subsidies, with 60 percent of the value of U.S. agricultural production receiving a 3 percent subsidy share in 1999. This concentration of benefits on a relatively few commodities is an artifact of the way that commodity programs were initially set up in the 1930s. Tobacco, barley, corn, wheat, cotton, oats, rice, and grain sorghum were by far the most important commodity crops that had firm political backing because production was geographically concentrated in a relatively small number of states. Livestock production was much more widely distributed throughout the states, and a significant portion of livestock products were consumed on-farm or locally. Soybeans was a relatively minor crop." ....
....
While I'm at it, I'll include the link to the Mulch blog. It contains an amazing amount of information concerning farm subsidies.
The memories this recipe brings back. My mother made applebutter when I was little. I remember helping her.
Posted by: Susan | May 14, 2006 at 03:45 PM
Ah, Susan. This blog had about died of neglect. Thanks for coming by and jogging my memory about its existence! Nothing better than home-churned butter and home-made applebutter on home-made, flaky biscuits. My mouth waters!
Posted by: Cop Car | May 14, 2006 at 03:57 PM