The new Five-Year Plan

Submitted by Bill St. Clair on Wed, 13 Feb 2002 13:43:26 GMT

FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED FEB. 13, 2002 THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz The new Five-Year Plan

Despite rhetoric about curbing wasteful government boondoggles -- subsidy programs that actually increase the shelf price of groceries to the poorest Americans -- the U.S. Congress is in the process of unraveling a hard-won 1996 law that would have weaned American farmers off federal subsidies.

(So much for the "Republican Revolution.")

Overall, the new socialist agricultural Five-Year Plan will increase federal spending on agricultural subsidies, price-supports ... even payments to grow nothing at all ... by $45 billion over five years.

(Good thing there's no recession ... and no deficit.)

But as a small sop to taxpayers -- to make the whole scheme look slightly less obscene -- the Senate voted Feb. 7 to cap annual federal subsidies at $275,000 per "farm family," while also making the nation's richest farmers ineligible for federal crop support.

"There have to be limits," said Don Nickles, R-Okla. "If not, we are going to allow people to make millions off of these programs."

Recipients of hundreds of thousands of dollars in federal farm payments over recent years have included such Fortune 500 companies as Chevron Corp. and International Paper Co. and wealthy urbanites such as Charles Schwab, who heads a nationwide brokerage firm, lives in San Francisco and owns a rice and cotton farm in California's Glenn County, according to an Internet database set up by the Environmental Working Group, an environmental watchdog organization.

A Florida real estate developer who controls 130,000 acres of farm and ranch land received at least $1.2 million in subsidies for his 2000 crop, The Associated Press reports.

"Capping farm payments will restore integrity to farm programs," said farm state Sen. Charles. E. Grassley, R-Iowa, apparently with a straight face.

With even such multiple winners of the Silver Sow Award thus climbing aboard, surely no senator would be brazen enough to argue that $275,000 per family wouldn't be enough free government money ... right?

Think again. Thirty-one senators tried to derail this modest restriction on payments that often go to wealthy urban fat cats who haven't felt black dirt between their toes since they were in nursery school. Most of the dissidents were from the South, where cotton and rice interests are particularly dependent on federal subsidies.

"Do you know what this farm bill says to the South? Hold still, little catfish, all I'm going to do is just gut you," Sen. Zell Miller, D-Ga., said.

"Farmers need more support and higher prices because their costs are forever rising," said Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark. "Farmers are going out of business and rural towns are heading for the abyss."

Now, a certain number of pro forma "fighting words" to demonstrate an appropriate level of dedication to the cause for the benefit of the Folks Back Home are always to be expected. But ironically enough, backers of the subsidy cap point out that big government payments, by driving up land prices, have actually been helping large producers push smaller farmers out of business.

"The single most effective thing Congress could do to strengthen the fabric of rural communities and family farms across the nation is to stop subsidizing megafarms that drive their neighbors out of business by bidding land away from them," said Sen. Tim Johnson, D-S.D.

The subsidy cap is worth enacting, as a clear case of "better than nothing." But in fact, there is one far more effective thing Congress could do: Stick with the plan it OK'd in 1996. Let American housewives and food processors and textile mills (if there are any left) buy cheaper imported rice and cotton and sugar (ending the flight of candy manufacturers and their jobs over the border to Canada, for starters) while giving American farmers a date certain by which they'll have to shift to crops which they can successfully grow at competitive, free-market prices.

Isn't that what we keep telling the residents of the former Communist bloc they've got to do? Comrades?

Vin Suprynowicz is assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal. For information on his monthly newsletter and on his next book, "The Ballad of Carl Drega," dial 775-348-8591.

Vin Suprynowicz, vin@lvrj.com

"When great changes occur in history, when great principles are involved, as a rule the majority are wrong. The minority are right." -- Eugene V. Debs (1855-1926)

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed -- and thus clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." -- H.L. Mencken

Add comment Edit post Add post

Previous Posts:
Happy Dictator Day
$116,000 here, $116,000 there ... it's only tax money
Airline security and my 'attack on free enterprise'
'Fish protection' debunked as motive for bankrupting Oregon farmers
Henderson Thirteenth Grade
Hey Mustafa, try this
vin/020215.html
Zero Tolerance Strikes Again
Nation of Cowards
000716.html

Navigation

History

Quotes

Government doesn't work. Never did. Never will. Can't. But there are lots of good people. Love them.

-- Bill St. Clair

The Atlanta Declaration

Every man, woman, and responsible child has an unalienable individual, civil, Constitutional, and human right to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any weapon -- rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- any time, any place, without asking anyone's permission.

-- L. Neil Smith

Reread that pesky first clause of the Second Amendment. It doesn't say what any of us thought it said. What it says is that infringing the right of the people to keep and bear arms is treason. What else do you call an act that endangers "the security of a free state"? And if it's treason, then it's punishable by death. I suggest due process, speedy trials, and public hangings.

-- L. Neil Smith

A Penalty Clause for the Bill of Rights

Any official, appointed or elected, at any level of government, who attempts, through legislative act or other means, to nullify, evade, or avoid the provisions of the first ten amendments to this Constitution, or of the Thirteenth Amendment, shall be summarily removed from office, and, upon conviction, deprived of all pay and benefits including pension, and sentenced to imprisonment for life.

-- L. Neil Smith

Based on 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, and some of its own empirical work, the panel couldn't identify a single gun control regulation that reduced violent crime, suicide or accidents.

-- John Lott, commenting on the National Academy of Sciences report on gun control laws.

Who is a libertarian?

Zero Aggression Principle ("Zap")

"A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim."

-- L. Neil Smith

(Formerly called the "Non-Aggression Principle", or "NAP")

Why Did It Have to be... Guns?

Make no mistake: all politicians -- even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership -- hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it's an X-ray machine. It's a Vulcan mind-meld. It's the ultimate test to which any politician -- or political philosophy -- can be put.

If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash -- for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn't your friend no matter what he tells you.

If he isn't genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody's permission, he's a four-flusher, no matter what he claims.

What his attitude -- toward your ownership and use of weapons -- conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn't trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him?

-- L. Neil Smith

Concise

"Tell me," I was once asked, "What do you think about gun control? Give me the short answer." To which I replied, "If you try to take our firearms we will kill you."

-- Mike Vanderboegh

Also from The Atlanta Declaration:

... like going to the bathroom, breathing, eating, sleeping, or making love, it turns out that self-defense is a bodily function one cannot safely or effectively delegate to a second party.

-- L. Neil Smith

This does not mean that "Marijuana should be available by prescription." It means that morphine sulfate should be available in five pound bags at the supermarket for a couple of bucks, like sugar... but probably in a different aisle, to avoid confusion.

-- Vin Suprynowicz

If you refuse to pay unjust taxes, your property will be confiscated. If you attempt to defend your property, you will be arrested. If you resist arrest, you will be clubbed. If you defend yourself against clubbing, you will be shot dead. These procedures are known as the Rule of Law.

-- Edward Abbey

The state can only survive as long as a majority is programmed to believe that theft isn't wrong if it's called taxation or asset forfeiture or eminent domain, that assault and kidnapping isn't wrong if it's called arrest, that mass murder isn't wrong if it's called war.

-- Bill St. Clair