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