This page was last updated on August 1, 2013.
Farm money should be spent wiser; Charles Hansen; Beaver County Times; August 1, 2013.
Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.
“Last month the U.S. House of Representatives, on a party-line vote, broke with tradition by stripping from the farm bill the Supplementary Nutrition Assistance Program (food stamps).”
[RWC] I oppose all handouts in farm bills, whether food stamps or farm subsidies. If we actually cared about what the U.S. Constitution says, it’s likely farm bills are unconstitutional with or without food stamps and farm subsidies.
I think you’ll find Mr. Hansen only cares about “a party-line vote” when it doesn’t go his way. I found no letter from Mr. Hansen complaining about Obamacare.
According to USA Today, “the country’s food-stamp program … traditionally has made up 80% of spending in the [farm] bill.”
Except for politics, why are food stamps in a farm bill? Though both are related to food, both should be independent of each other.
“What’s left in the bill is billions of dollars of subsidies, mostly for farming conglomerates. The U.S. Senate passed a much more balanced bill the previous month. The farm bill sets U.S. agricultural, food, and resource conservation policy for the next five years.”
[RWC] As you read on, you’ll find Mr. Hansen is more concerned about some subsidies than others.
“Over the past 18 years, our government has doled out an average of $7 billion per year of taxpayer funds to support the livestock and dairy industries. Instead, their products should be taxed to reimburse state and federal governments for the uncounted billions in increased medical costs and lost productivity associated with their consumption. Conversely, a sound national nutrition program based on vegetables, whole grains, legumes, fruits and nuts can save additional billions in reduced social costs.”
[RWC] Mr. Hansen didn’t mention the source for his claim of “$7 billion per year of taxpayer funds to support the livestock and dairy industries.” That would be a total of about $126 billion for 18 years. If you believe the Environmental Working Group, however, the total “taxpayer funds to support the livestock and dairy industries” for 1995 – 2012 (18 years) amounted to about $9.4 billion, about 3.4% of total subsidies paid for this period.
Mr. Hansen and I would both kill “taxpayer funds to support the livestock and dairy industries,” but for different reasons. As noted above, I believe all subsidies are wrong because they sabotage a free market. Mr. Hansen, however, would kill the subsidies because of personal preference. You’ll also note Mr. Hansen didn’t call out subsidies for “vegetables, whole grains, legumes, fruits and nuts.” You’ll learn why below.
Mr. Hansen wants “a sound national nutrition program?” Yikes, another person who wants to force his diet on everyone. Is “Charles Hansen” an alias used by NY Mayor Michael Bloomberg, or maybe PA State Rep. Jesse White (D-46)? <g>
This paragraph illustrates the primary reason why government-run medical programs are bad. These programs are never really about medical care; they are simply a means to control us. As already noted, Mr. Hansen – an apparent vegan (no animal products) – wants to control what people eat. To “justify” his control, Mr. Hansen wants to use programs like Medicaid, Medicare, Obamacare, and so on by claiming his dietary choices are necessary to control the cost of those government-run medical programs. To push us to eat the way Mr. Hansen wants us to eat, he would increase the price of “bad” foods via taxes and presumably leave subsidies for “approved” foods in place. This is why Mr. Hansen didn’t mention subsidies for “vegetables, whole grains, legumes, fruits and nuts,” which are much larger than those for his dreaded “livestock and dairy industries.”
“I am all in favor of reducing our national deficit, government waste and medical costs. But that’s not gonna happen by taking nutritious food from the mouths of 47 million of our society’s least privileged members.”
[RWC] I have my doubts about Mr. Hansen being “all in favor of reducing our national deficit, government waste and medical costs.” Does anyone care to guess who gets to choose what goes on the “nutritious food” list?
After all of the above, here’s the bottom line. Where in the U.S. Constitution is the federal government given the authority to take from one family and give to another? That is exactly what happens with food stamps and subsidies. Beyond that legal issue, there is nothing compassionate about the government taking from one family’s paycheck to give to someone who didn’t earn it. There is nothing altruistic or charitable about telling government to rob from Peter to pay Paul. Compassion is when a person freely chooses to use his own paycheck to help someone in need. Should people in need get help? Of course, but from private charities funded by voluntary contributions, not by confiscated earnings.
© 2004-2013 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.