You don't have to be lactose intolerant to be sickened by the Farm Bill currently being considered in Congress. But if you read the bill you'll probably start to feel a little queasy when faced with dairy products in the future.
The new Farm Bill which just passed the House and is headed to the Senate spends $286 billion over 5 years to underwrite the expenses of giant agrobusinesses, maintain the production of unnecessary and unprofitable crops, pay farmers not to grow certain profitable crops, guarantee high prices for key agricultural products, and artificially lower the prices of others.
It pays farmers to grow crops for which there is little commercial demand and buys up excess production of favored crops at a premium price at taxpayer expense. It's a huge festering pile of bill-shit put together to answer the demands of lobbyists and representatives from the largest agricultural states with little consideration of what might be best for consumers, for the economy or for most farmers.
50% of the spending in the bill is concentrated on just 7 highly agricultural states with influential representatives and almost half of the spending in the bill goes to support only about 6% of our farmers most of whom work in large agrobusinesses producing certain favored crops. The bill which is being sent on to the Senate shows the unmistakable stamp of Rep. David Obey (D-WI), the King of Government Cheese, whose tireless work on behalf of the dairy industry explains some of the worst ideas featured in the bill, including the government's plan to purchase and warehouse over 2 billion pounds of dairy products at an average price of about a dollar a pound. In the Senate we find another Dairy Pimp in a key position of influence with Sen. Herb Kohl (D-WI) as Chair of the Agriculture Subcommittee of the Appropriateions Committee, so the future of government cheese is pretty secure.
While taxpayers should object to paying over $50 billion a year for utterly unnecessary regulation, subsidization and massive loan programs, it seems like other groups find plenty to object to in the farm bill for other reasons.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Glen Boyd
Don't sugarcoat it okay Dave?
-Glen
2 - Dave Nalle
I can't sugar coat it. Only pure corn syrup can be used for such applications.
Dave
3 - Doug Hunter
From my corner of the world it appears farmers are doing well already. Increased populations, decreased farmland, and diversion of crops to fuel instead of food provides plenty of incentive to stay in without subsidies. Decent equipment, hybrid and modified crops, and designer fertilizers and other chemicals make the entry into farming a 7 figure affair but there are plenty of 'small' family farms left in my area.
I don't enjoy farming being controlled by an oligarchy of large megacorps, but the expensive equipment and techniques get so much more production from an area of land with much less labor. A person and a couple of his kids can easily run thousands of acres of land. There's no need to have a half million people farming anymore. The increase in efficiency allows those extra workers to go find something else more productive. That's capitalism, something you usually are a fan of.
BTW, All the farmers I know personally are doing great.
4 - Dave Nalle
I agree, Doug. The farmers I know are doing well, and would continue to do well or do better without subsidies, because they are farming specifically for local markets or growing organic produce. But there are certainly some crops they cannot grow even if they want to, because the subsidies going to large growers make it impossible to get a competitive price.
As for my support of capitalism, it's part of what makes me oppose the farm bill. Government underwriting of business - even farming - is inherently contrary to a free market.
Dave
5 - handyguy
Our agricultural policies are ridiculous, and many people in Congress know this and would like to change it. But they are trapped by the politics of it - the importance of Iowa in a presidential election year, for example.
Pelosi supported an effort to reduce farm subsidies earlier this year, but had to bow to the reality of not having enough votes (several newly-elected Dems from farm states felt too vulnerable voting against subsidies, and several old bulls from farm states weren't about to budge).
It's one issue Pelosi actually agrees with Bush on, which ought to break the paralysis. But nope.
6 - handyguy
Tasty though they certainly are, dairy products are about the most unhealthy foods you can put in your body.
I do have to object to this highly questionable factoid. The (2% fat) cottage cheese and yogurt that I eat nearly every day for breakfast are very healthy indeed - calcium and protein without excessive calories. (The yogurt is Greek, so I guess it's not subsidized by Congress.)
And butter and hard cheese are fine foods in moderation, just not if consumed to excess. Sugar and flour and trans-fats are way unhealthier.
7 - Dave Nalle
IMO Yogurt is only marginally a dairy product, and cottage cheese is disgusting so it must be healthy. Yes, some dairy products are less bad for you than others, but whole milk and hard cheeses and butter are really pretty unhealthy. Your body just wasn't made to process that kind of stuff.
As a class of foods, dairy products just aren't healthy overall compared to the other classes of foods. For that matter, there's even bias in the food pyramid. Dairy products shouldn't even BE a separate category of foods which we're supposed to eat X servings of per day. The dairy lobby got them added to the list. There's no nutritional justification for differentiating dairy from other sources of protein and fat.
Dave
8 - moonraven
[Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]
Some of us process MOST dairy just fine--even in our 60s.
Subsidies, however, do not go down well with anyone except the subsidized.
In fact, they are the MAIN reason why your hero Braindead Bush's hemispheric "free trade agreement" will never happen.
9 - klo
I don't disagree with your basic premise - that reform is needed - but this article is completely riddled with inaccuracies.
"When the bill goes to the Senate it will be in the hands of Sen. David Obey (D-WI)." Obey is in the House and I'm not sure he's even on the Agriculture Committee in that chamber.
"There are a few million dollars set aside for research on biodiesel and ethanol production" There is $1.1 billion in spending plus almost $2B in tax benefits for biofuels.
"There's even a measure to prohibit sugar producers from selling their excess production for use in making ethanol, despite the established fact that sugar from beets or cane is more efficient as a source of ethanol than corn, which continues to receive incentives for ethanol production." Actually, there is a provision that REQUIRES the Department of Agriculture to sell "excess" sugar to ethanol producers on the cheap. And that "established fact" is based on sugar-to-ethanol in Brazil, where the economics are completely different than they are in the U.S.
Plus, the payment limits you criticize are those that are in the House bill, which is completely different from what the Senate has.
I'm disappointed that this peice is so inaccurate.
10 - Baronius
Lautenberg is a Democrat. It's worth noting because the Fresh Act isn't some minority-party crank protest, but a bipartisan bill.
11 - Dave Nalle
"There are a few million dollars set aside for research on biodiesel and ethanol production" There is $1.1 billion in spending plus almost $2B in tax benefits for biofuels.
Where? That was in the original House version of the bill, but I can't find it in the version which was sent on to the Senate last week.
Dave
12 - JustOneMan
I live in New Jersey - Lautenberg is a Dumbocrat and he is also a senile old fart who is reponsible for the corruption and collapse of New Jerseys government...he is the patriarch of all that is wrog in this state
Anything with his name on it is wrong for America...
JOM
13 - moonraven
Hmmmm. Back in my day on the East Coast, New Jersey's problems were all identified as being mafia-caused....
14 - Martin Lav
Dave Nalle:
I completely agree with you for once (almost).
It's time we completely redesigned our agri-business and distribution in this country. The family farm is constantly getting squeezed out in this country and it's largely due to the Government subsidies and they way they are allocated.
Grow local, eat local.
15 - Martin Lav
“Attention shoppers! Buy with a conscience and save the family farm.”
" Neil Young
16 - Clavos
Martin,
"Grow local, eat local."
I get your point, and I agree with it (mostly), but I'm mindful that such a policy implemented nationwide would pretty much kill agriculture in Florida, since almost all of what we grow is shipped elsewhere for consumption. And agriculture is our second largest industry, after tourism.
17 - Howard
Dave, you said "...sales at artificially inflated prices so they can stockpile cheese, butter and powdered milk? All this does is encourage increased production and the pollution which goes with it, while keeping prices artificially low to encourage excessive consumption."
How does keeping prices high result in keeping prices low? I think you misspoke. The absurd dairy subsidies keep prices high for producers and consumers, discouraging consumption and encouraging production.
We not only pay for higher commodity prices, we pay to store, ship, give-a-way, or ultimately destroy excess production. You barely mentioned the greatest sin of agricultural legislative artists, the sugar industry. In today's Wall Street Journal, domestic sugar is quoted at $.20 per lb while world sugar is $.10 per lb. The total "support" provided the domestic sugar industry dwarfs any other agricultural program and it's not even a part of the legislation you attack.
You plead for the small farmer. That's as shortsighted as pleading for the mom & pop store vs Walmart. Agriculture is probably the most accomplished industry in the U. S. It needs no subsidy. It needs to be left alone.
As a stockbroker in the late 1960's and early 1970's, trading commodities was much better that trading stocks. In 1969, wheat sold for $3.25 per bu.; soybeans sold for $6 per bu.; corn sold for $2.50 per bu. Those prices were still current in 2003. Only with the unenlightened actions of our energy policy challenged fed have those prices increased in recent months and years. Those who plant and harvest the crops of this nation are the undisputed leaders in increasing productivity. They should be praised! Unfortunately, they have been drugged at the tit of the government sow.
Howard
18 - Martin Lav
Yes, but they can grow more than oranges and strawberries in Florida. Hell we can even EXPORT your crops to countries that can't grow Oranges. All I'm saying is, our subsidy program is an impediment to doing what's best for people (healthy fresh food) what's best for the land (crop rotation based on seasons) and what's best for the farmer (fair prices for growing sustainable foods for consumption and NOT for shipping).
19 - Clavos
Couldn't agree with you more about the subsidies, Martin. That's the first step, no question.
Actually, we already do grow far more than oranges and strawberries; we grow most of the sugar in the USA, and much of that is shipped abroad. We also are the principal source for all the east coast (east of the Mississippi) of almost all vegetables, particularly in the winter.
And that last is the one strong argument against "grow local, eat local:"
Winter vegetables for the cold regions from places like Florida and California.
PS Most of our oranges go into juice. California grows the bulk of the eatin' oranges.
20 - JustOneMan
Moonie more racism! this time against Itailian Americans...today in New Jersey most of our issues are caused by the victim mentality of the Blacks and Hispanics and our Liberal Jewish Governor who will flush this state down the toilet just to appease them...
JOM
21 - Dave Nalle
Interesting how the left and right here seem to agree on the 'buy local, eat local' concept. What on earth does it mean that we agree on it. And who the hell doesn't agree, and where do we go to string them up - perhaps Capitol Hill.
As for the issue of crops like oranges, obviously a more localized marketplace is still going to have a place for those specialty crops. You can't grow oranges most places, so they are going to have to be imported from somewhere like Florida or Southern California. That's not going to have any negative impact on the local market, and the transportation costs and such will be reflected in the higher price of the luxury fruit. Essentially the 'local' market for Florida oranges is the whole eastern seaboard.
Dave
22 - moonraven
At no point did I mention Italian-Americans. Much less in a racist way.
I just happened to have a lover whose family in Newark was 100% mafia.
23 - sahil simon
did you know how cheese was invented? It wasnt necessity, it was an accident, read this
24 - handyguy
Some members of the [environmentalist] left and the [libertarian] right agree on Grow/Buy/Eat Local.
But way too many members of the pro-big-agribusiness right [in both parties] are afraid to change their tune on subsidies, even though if done intelligently, it would bring sanity, not destruction, to agribusiness.
Whether you choose to call this corruption, or just pigheadedness, at the moment it ain't budgin'.
25 - Maurice®
Great article, Dave.
As the great Walter Williams said, "The single law you could pass that would help all other laws would be that any law passed would have to apply to all people. In other words if you pass a law that says you will pay this person for not growing pigs then you must pay all people for not growing pigs".