Dear Everyone;
Three articles - inter-related to each other - all involving agricultural tax subsidy leeches.
The first is how the government destroys moral character through its benevolence creating agricultural leeches - at the taxpayers expense - of course.
The other two articles are basically about the same things - tax sucking agricultural leeches.
The first is how the FDA wants to re-adjust the WIC (Women Infants Children) milk subsidy program to cut back on the amounts of subsidized milk and cheese and include fruits vegetables and grains. Dairy farmers are upset because it will cut them off some $400 million of subsidies.
Tough ca ca dairy farmers - get your milking hand and milk cows out of my wallet.
The second article is about how fruit and vegetable growers are facing imported competition which is cheaper and now they want help aid and federal subsidies which could end up totaling several billion dollars. Mainly California farmers - so far.
Thanks a lot - if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen and keep your fruit and vegetable picking hands out of my wallet!
Let's get all agricultural farm subsidies repealed and save the combined program total of $176 billion proposed to be paid out over the next 10 year cycle. That amounts to an annual “food tax” per household of about $156. Milk cheese butter sugar fruits vegetables meats cost anywhere from 25% to twice as much higher because of subsidies and price supports.
Once upon a time 25% of the US population lived on family farms - now it's 2% - but but but - only 1/3 of those receive subsidies - nice fat subsidies by the way.
Thank You Dear Congress and All the Presidents who never could veto a farm subsidy bill.
Ron Getty
SF Libertarian
http://tinyurl.com/uy7tl
Government vs. Virtue
by Robert Higgs
by Robert Higgs
"Thou shalt not steal" is a rule as old as human society itself. We are taught early to respect what belongs to others, and by the time we are three years old, we understand the difference between mine and thine. Those who do not take the lesson to heart and persist in treating everybody’s property as something to take, so long as they can get away with it, are viewed as sociopaths.
Yet government as we know it rests entirely on this kind of sociopathy. Rulers take what does not belong to them and dispose of it to suit themselves.
Abetted by misguided or co-opted intellectuals, the rulers weave a cloak of legitimacy to disguise their theft and hence to ease their extraction of wealth from the rightful owners.
When governments justify their actions on “democratic” grounds, many people are taken in by this ideological sleight of hand.
They believe that “we tax ourselves” so that the rulers “we choose” can dispose of the booty in ways “we voted for,” and they close their eyes to the gulf that separates this pristine ideological vision from the sordid reality of the government’s actual conduct. People then take for granted that anything the government will give them they have a perfect right to receive.
For example, many farmers now receive, first, subsidies to purchase crop insurance, then insurance benefits when their crops fall short and then additional government payments denominated “disaster aid.” By means of this double-dipping, as The Washington Post reported recently, U.S. farmers have extracted almost $24 billion from taxpayers to fund crop-insurance and disaster-aid programs since 2000.
Among the recipients, the prevailing attitude seems to be the one expressed by Tulare County farmer Charles Fisher: “Whether it’s right or wrong, if they are offering it, you’re foolish to turn it down.”
In that single sentence, Fisher has encapsulated the rotten core of the welfare state and concisely expressed how it destroys moral character. The swag is there for the taking. Financial gain trumps moral probity. Don’t be a chump; take the money.
I don’t know Charles Fisher, but if he is like many others who profit by despoiling their fellow man, with government as the go-between, he is not the kind of man who would pocket his neighbor’s wallet if he saw it fall to the ground unnoticed; nor is he the kind of man who would wait beside the road to rob the first passer-by at gunpoint. Yet he will steal from countless strangers – in effect, a little bit from everyone who pays federal taxes – “whether it’s right or wrong,” simply to bulk up his income from farming.
The farmers, of course, are not uniquely culpable. They are morally the same as countless others, albeit more politically successful than most others. The moral rot is pervasive: It defiles business operators, doctors, lawyers, clergy, students, retirees, and numerous others along with the farmers.
“The state,” Frédéric Bastiat wrote long ago, “is the great fiction by which everybody tries to live at the expense of everybody else.” If only the great man could see us now. Even he might be amazed, and appalled, by the heights to which this futile quest has been raised.
Regardless of how one assesses the morality of modern government’s hypertrophied taking from Peter and giving to Paul, however, this activity definitely bears a deadly fruit. Because it creates such widespread and powerful incentives for people to engage in government-facilitated predation, instead of production, it diverts great energies, intelligence and other resources to the pursuit of privilege. As more and more such diversion occurs, the society falls farther and farther below the full realization of its potential to create genuine wealth.
Eventually, everybody will be fighting to seize and consume the seed corn, and none will remain for planting next year’s crop. There’s a natural, unavoidable outcome of such action. Ask any farmer.
November 8, 2006
Robert Higgs [send him mail] is senior fellow in political economy at the Independent Institute and editor of The Independent Review. His most recent book is Depression, War, and Cold War: Studies in Political Economy. He is also the author of Resurgence of the Warfare State: The Crisis Since 9/11 and Against Leviathan. This article originally appeared in The Examiner.
Dairy Farmers Fearful of WIC Program
The government wants to update its nutrition program for low-income families to encourage healthier food choices, but that could hurt the financial health of dairy farmers and other producers.
The Agriculture Department's proposal would add fruits, vegetables and whole grains, covering the extra cost by purchasing less milk, cheese, eggs and juice for the Women, Infants and Children program.
According to estimates by the department, sales of milk through the WIC program would be reduced from $906 million to $677 million, and sales of cheese would be reduced from $420 million to $253 million. Taken together, that comes to about $400 million less in dairy sales.
"For a farmer that's been struggling this year with milk prices to now have less consumption that's going to lower demand - that is a concern," said Peter Kappelman, who runs a 400-cow dairy farm with his brother John Kappelman in Manitowoc, Wis.
Agriculture Department statistics show that purchases through the WIC program account for 6 percent of annual U.S. milk sales and 3 percent of cheese sales.
Kappelman said he was also concerned that the rule would affect eating habits of Americans, so it could have a long-term effect beyond the WIC sales. And he questioned the wisdom of reducing milk in the WIC package.
"Milk offers one of best packages of calcium and protein, and we're cutting back in that area," he said.
The WIC program, which helps feed more than half the babies born in the U.S., provides vouchers or food checks for purchases worth around $35 a month.
The proposed revisions are based on suggestions by the federally chartered Institute of Medicine. The addition of fruits, vegetables and whole grains follows changes made to the government's dietary guidelines last year.
Under the proposal, milk would be reduced from three cups a day to two cups for children ages 1 through 5, and soy milk and tofu would be allowed as substitutions for those who have trouble digesting lactose or have milk allergies.
Eggs would be reduced from 2-1/2 dozen per month to 1 dozen per month for women and children, and 2 dozen for women who are breast-feeding.
And juice would be reduced from 9 ounces per day to 4 ounces per day for children ages 1 through 5.
Trade groups represented dairy, eggs and juice makers have all filed comments with the Agriculture Department arguing that the reductions would deprive women and children of important nutrients.
"Obviously, anytime you have a program that benefits both constituents and dairy farmers, we have concerns about both those stakeholders," said Chris Galen, a spokesman for the National Milk Producers Federation.
"Robbing the dairy portion to pay for fruit and vegetable ones doesn't address the issue of a balanced diet overall."
Agriculture says egg sales through the program would be cut from $158 million to $85 million - a reduction of nearly half.
"It's a substantial hit to us," said Howard Magwire, a Washington lobbyist for the United Egg Producers. "We can live with that, but we think they're making a mistake."
Magwire said Agriculture should seek funds to add fruits, vegetables and grains without reducing funding for other products.
Juice sales through WIC would also be reduced by nearly half, from $555 million to $282 million, according to USDA estimates.
"The proposed reduction in the juice allocation for WIC participants has the possibility of sending an inappropriate and unsubstantiated message about the benefits of 100 percent juice," said Carol Freysinger, executive director of the Juice Products Association.
Tae Chong, a public policy nutritionist at the National WIC Association, which represents agencies that administer the program at the state and local level, said his group embraced the proposed rule.
"What the WIC rule recommends follows a number of national dietary guidelines," he said.
Anti-hunger groups have also come out in support of the proposed changes.
Susan Acker, a spokeswoman for the USDA's Food and Nutrition Service, said that the department largely followed recommendations from the Institute of Medicine.
"IOM's revised food packages were developed to better reflect current nutrition science and dietary recommendations than do current food packages, within the parameters of current program costs," she said.
The Agriculture Department, which is reviewing public comments, expects to issue a final rule by next September, Acker said.
More Farmers Seek Subsidies as U.S. Eats Imported Produce
Peter DaSilva for The New York Times
Workers at Christopher Ranch in California. The garlic company is fighting to hold its American market share despite foreign imports.
By ALEXEI BARRIONUEVO
Published: December 3, 2006
FRESNO COUNTY, Calif. — For decades, the fiercely independent fruit and vegetable growers of California, Florida and other states have been the only farmers in America who shunned federal subsidies, delivering produce to the tables of millions of Americans on their own.
A Growing Gap In Fresh Produce
But now, in the face of tough new competition primarily from China, even these proud groups are buckling. Produce farmers, their hands newly outstretched, have joined forces for the first time, forming a lobby group intended to pressure politicians over the farm bill to be debated in Congress in January.
Nobody disputes that competitive pressures from abroad are squeezing fruit and vegetable growers, whose garlic, broccoli, lettuce, strawberries and other products are a mainstay of world kitchens. But the issue of whether the United States ought to broaden farm subsidies beyond the commodity crops like corn and cotton, which have historically been protected, is a big flashpoint.
“This is like the tectonic plates of farm policy shifting, because you have a completely new player coming in and demanding money,” said Kenneth A. Cook, president of Environmental Working Group, a research group in Washington that has been critical of farm subsidies, which are mandated by federal laws that date to the Great Depression.
Although some farmers may be suffering, American consumers have been big beneficiaries of cheap food imports. On the United States wholesale market, for example, Chinese garlic costs almost half the price of garlic that is grown domestically.
Existing American farm subsidy policies have been the subject of violent protests outside some World Trade Organization meetings, with detractors calling them an antique way of subsidizing United States farmers at the expense of poorer ones. American fruit and vegetable growers, with their much smaller farms, have never been part of this debate, in part because their crops yielded higher returns, did not need much support, and were never organized around a single policy goal.
But times have changed.
Here in the fertile San Joaquin Valley, Mike Mantelli has seen firsthand the substantial changes forced by the rising tide of Chinese garlic into the United States. As the general manager of the largest American garlic company, Christopher Ranch, he remembers when there were 1,200 acres of garlic planted on a 6,000-acre farm here a decade ago.
Today the company plants less than 300 acres because of lower demand for California garlic, he said.
“The Chinese garlic totally caught us off-guard and knocked us down,” Mr. Mantelli said recently as he checked on newly planted garlic bulbs. “I think our industry has hit rock bottom. Maybe now we can figure out how to make it a level playing field.”
So Mr. Mantelli has joined the coalition of about 75 growers of specialty crops who have united to grab a much bigger slice of the federal subsidy pie.
The group, representing growers of everything from broccoli to strawberries to nuts and flowers and wine, submitted a bill in September asking for what most likely would amount to more than $1 billion for programs they say could help their crops compete better in a tougher global marketplace.
The farmers are not asking for the kind of direct subsidies that have been accused of distorting trade and hurting developing countries’ agricultural industries. Hoping to avoid a nasty battle with powerful farm-state politicians in the Midwest and Southeast, they are asking instead for money to help market their products at home and overseas, as well as for research and conservation.
But whatever money the fruit and vegetable farmers might get would probably have to come out of the allocation that already goes to other sorts of farmers. As things stand, the federal farm subsidy program supplies more than $15 billion a year, primarily to growers of five crops: corn, cotton, rice, wheat and soybeans. Those crops are considered interchangeable commodities and are traded on world markets, unlike fruits and vegetables, which are called specialty crops because their taste and quality are viewed as being highly variable.
While some vegetable and fruit groups have previously requested more funds, they have never before mounted a united challenge. “This is the first time these groups have weighed in with a sense of organization and commitment,” said Clayton Yeutter, a former agriculture secretary and United States trade representative.
The current agriculture secretary, Mike Johanns, looks favorably on the produce growers’ bill. The legislation also has the advantage that the farmers come from states with sizable representation in Congress.
Still, the proposal is likely to face a tough road. There are many other federal budget priorities, and farm experts say there will probably be less money allocated to the farm bill next year than in 2002, when there was a huge increase.
Further, while commodity growers are making courteous noises about the fruit and vegetable farmers’ requests, they have historically enjoyed a near monopoly on federal subsidies.
But fruit and vegetable farmers have been gaining influence. The group’s combined cash receipts of $52.2 billion rival or exceed those of the five major commodity crops, which are expected to generate $52 billion this year.
The produce farmers can also point to the competitive situation. California growers once dominated the garlic industry in the United States, but imports from China and Hong Kong have increased from less than 1 million pounds in 2000 to 112 million pounds last year. This year, for the first time, more Chinese garlic will be sold in the United States than California produces, Commerce Department figures show.
China’s farmers, who are broadly subsidized, have the advantage in that their nation’s currency, the yuan, is tightly regulated to maximize trade opportunities. And the country has a glut of workers for the labor-intensive jobs of growing and harvesting fruits and vegetables.
“Of course consumers are benefiting now,” said Peter Morici, an economist at the University of Maryland business school and a former chief economist at the United States International Trade Commission. “But competition should not be based on subsidies.”
Other specialty crop groups are also struggling with foreign competition, in particular from China, which has geared its agriculture industry towards labor-intensive, higher-value fruits and vegetables. China has begun to dominate everything from apples to onions. Chinese exports have also eaten into American growers’ share of markets in Japan and Hong Kong for items like broccoli and lettuce.
Fruit and vegetable growers have the political advantage of being in states like California, Florida and Arizona, which are likely to be critical in the 2008 presidential election. But it is unclear how important the farm vote will be to the Democrats in the next election.
Under the proposed bill, an overseas marketing program would rise 75 percent, to $350 million a year. An existing specialty crop block-grant program would leap tenfold to $500 million a year. And the government would buy at least $400 million worth of fruits and vegetables annually for school lunch programs.
Whether the fruit and vegetable farmers can win that much will depend in large part on just how much money Congress allocates to farm spending next year.
If the farmers get what they want, consumers could benefit from more information and choice at the grocery store, said Professor Morici of the University of Maryland. At the same time, American growers could become more efficient and competitive.
“Things that help farmers band together and compete are not inherently protectionist or harmful,” Professor Morici said. “It is not an unreasonable thing for a fragmented industry to ask the government for assistance to make the virtues of their industry better known.”
He added, “Whatever money they put for research would benefit the consumer. That would run down their price, and eventually that information would get around the world.”
Mr. Johanns, the agriculture secretary, said in a speech last month that American farm policy needed to be “equitable, predictable and beyond challenge.” Noting the fruit and vegetable farmers’ proposal, he said that farm programs could no longer be decided among a few commodities in a few parts of the country. “That day has changed,” Mr. Johanns said.
The vegetable and fruit growers stood by silently for decades in large part because they did not need government assistance to be successful. While generating close to half of farm receipts, the specialty crops are grown on just 11 million acres of farmland, versus 215 million for the major commodity crops.
In California, new financing could not come soon enough for garlic farms like the Christopher Ranch. The Christophers, fourth-generation farmers in the state, have struggled to hold their market share, and it is not hard to see why: On the wholesale market, Chinese garlic recently cost $15 to $16 for a 30-pound box, compared with $28 for a box of California garlic.
In the late 1990s the Christopher Ranch’s garlic production peaked at about 100 million pounds. Since then sales and acreage have fallen by more than 40 percent. In 2001 China began flooding the market with garlic, after managing to find ways around an import tariff of 377 percent.
As the demand for their garlic has fallen, the Christophers have turned to growing crops like pearl onions and shallots. The family hired a trade lawyer in Washington to try to battle tariff violations. Now they hope that the proposed crop bill will give them a chance to educate consumers and pay for more research into crop diseases.
“We don’t want handouts,” Mr. Mantelli said. “You don’t want to just give people subsidies, because nobody learns from subsidies. But you want to give them opportunities and resources and tools to make their industry better.”