Letter to the Editor of U.S. News & World Report
written by Tom Asbridge of Bismarck, ND in response to an article that appeared in the May 27 issue.
 

RE: Borger article
RE: Feeding at the Trough

Borger would do journalism and the public a great service by looking deeper into the “TROUGH”.

First, the math is wrong—the spending will be about the same as the total expenditures under the 1996 farm bill. As an aside, the 1996 farm bill worked as intended. It reduced commodity prices overall and increased supplies, rewarding those who paid for the bill. The monetary shortfall, that all parties knew existed, necessitated emergency funding in each subsequent year.

The “TROUGH” consists of the giant agri-business concerns and the food industry in general. Even with the subsidies, the cost of producing America’s food and fiber supply is not being paid. The producer and the consumer are both victims of Washington policy.

The producer has been made increasingly dependent on checks from the government and the consumer must pay twice—one at the market and once to the tax man.

While farm organizations create the image that they are successful at bringing home the bacon, the fact are far different. Farm organizations just can’t compete in the big money environment in Washington. These groups real talent lies in lobbying the client not Congress.

Votes you say? The farm vote has become increasingly insignificant for decades.

Farm subsidies pace the rate of rural America’s decline—-going too fast will affect the banking and other farm support industries (all large political contributors). The subsidies will continue to do that, but do not provide enough income to support rural infrastructure. The marketplace will not, under current federal policy, allow basic production costs to be paid.

In the history of farm legislation, this farm bill has “plowed” new ground. Votes were needed in Congress, not from voters. Too much scrutiny of the defense contractors and profiteering was about to bubble over. Farm State legislators could not muster the votes to fund the farm bill. They knew that their contributors and their constituents, in that order, needed immediate attention. The due bills were coming in. In a flash of political brilliance, they discovered the voting power to fund the increases in defense spending, without much scrutiny, and took advantage. An efficient trade. Just politics. And a new farm bill appears like magic.

The public gets the appearance of cheap food, the defense contractors continue to reap huge profits, politicians maintain the flow of campaign contributions, rural America continues reaching for the 30 pieces of silver and the status quos is maintained.

There is a big though and a lot of hogs feeding. While the producers of America’s food and fiber and numerous journalists might believe that farmers have some space at the trough, it’s just another case of the wool being pulled over their eyes.

I would like to remind the author that the Founding Fathers intended a Republic—legislated by both population and geography—that part is still working. What the Founding Father’s did not intend was a system total dominated by powerful special interests that assist in reducing the voting power of the citizens. Absent real reform of how we elect our leaders and who we allow to buy influence in campaigning, superficial scrutiny of the workings of Washington is as good as it gets.

Tom Asbridge
Bismarck, ND