Search
Polls
Latest Forum Posts
| Taking a Knee unclebuck 15-11-08 13:51 |
| Re:Football unclebuck 07-10-08 15:24 |
| Re:Football unclebuck 02-10-08 12:59 |
Login Form
| Farm subsidies revisited |
|
|
| Written by Earl Hiatt / Community Columnist | |
| Saturday, 27 October 2007 | |
 It’s not what I have said about farm subsidies that has bothered some people; it’s what they think about what I say.
I recently said in a Sept. 29 column in the Irrigator: “It’s amazing how those capitalistic Farm Bureau members will wind up at the socialistic trough when free money is available.” And that was read as, “Farmers who participate in farm programs are socialists lining up at the subsidy trough.” I contend that those are two completely different meanings. In a recent rebuttal to my original article, I was taken to task for various “unwarranted, offensive insults” to the Perez family. That was neither my intention nor desire, and I apologize for any displeasure I caused. As the Perez family wrote in an Oct. 6 editorial, and I agree, they are active participants and work extremely hard in the farming industry and for the betterment of the community. Though I want to examine the above-mentioned rebuttal, none of it should be directly associated with or be considered derogatory to the Perez family. It is true that federal farm programs were started in the Depression, but they were based on what Benito Mussolini had been doing in Italy. Unfortunately, most government programs are so full of fabrications (the war with Iraq) and unsupportable assumptions (the coming war with Iran) that they are rather untrustworthy. After many years of evaluating government plans, including forest plans, watershed plans, wildlife plans, energy plans, urban plans and transportation plans, my conclusion is that government planning almost always does more harm than good. It is true that without cotton subsidies, less cotton would be grown in the U.S., but California has already lost most of its cotton acreage in the past 40 years. And we are having a hassle with China and its cotton subsidies, but our subsidized cotton goes into world trade, and that causes another problem. Other cotton-producing countries are suing the U.S. through the World Trade Organization, insisting our low-priced subsidized cotton is limiting their market for home-grown cotton. Part of the federal farm bill money is used to promote locally grown produce. Perhaps we should include money for foreign countries to promote their locally grown cotton, being as our subsidized cotton is part of their problem. What I am suggesting is whenever you try to get around the free market, there will always be unintended consequences that are sometimes worse than the original problem. Some suggest that the farm bill has little to do with congressional pork and vote buying, but I disagree. Does anyone actually think that there would be a farm bill if farmers couldn’t vote? In the Irrigator article (“Farm bill draws mixed response,” Page 4, Sept. 9), Rep. Dennis Cardoza, D-Atwater, mentioned there were 25 to 30 senators who would not vote for tighter restrictions on subsidies. These are all farm-state senators. And who are the swing voters in farm states if their congressperson doesn’t come through? You guessed it — the farmers. Cardoza is pushing the fact that California farmers should get a bigger share of this farm bill pie. As a result, more California farmers will get to share the trough, Cardoza hopes to get re-elected and the taxpayers foot the $286 billion bill. Patterson resident Earl Hiatt is a semi-retired agri-businessman. His columns appear occasionally on the Irrigator Voice page.
Set as favorite
Bookmark
Email This
Hits: 181 Comments
(0)
|
Subscribe to this comment's feed