Farm Security: The mohair of the dog that bites you

HombrePequeno

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2001
4,657
0
0
If you're like most American taxpayers, you often wake up in the middle of the night in a cold sweat and ask yourself: ``Am I doing enough to support mohair producers?''

I am pleased to report that you are, thanks to bold action taken recently by the United States Congress (motto: ``Hey, It's not OUR money!''). I am referring to the 2002 Farm Security Act, which recently emerged from the legislative process very much the way a steaming wad of processed vegetation emerges from the digestive tract of a cow.

The purpose of the Farm Security act is to provide farmers with ''price stability.'' What do we mean by ''price stability?'' We mean: your money. You have already been very generous about this: Last year alone, you gave more than $20 billion worth of price stability to farmers. Since 1996, you've given more than a million dollars apiece to more than 1,000 lucky recipients, many of which are actually big agribusinesses. Some of the ''farmers'' you've sent your money to are billionaires, such as Ted Turner and Charles Schwab, as well as major corporations, such as Chevron, DuPont and John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance.

But that is NOTHING compared with how generous you're about to get, taxpayers! Thanks to the Farm Security Act, over the next 10 years, you'll be providing farmers with 70 percent MORE stability, for a total of $180 billion. At this rate, in a few years farmers will be so stable that they'll have to huddle in their root cellars for fear of being struck by bales of taxpayer-supplied cash raining down on the Heartland states from Air Force bombers.

Perhaps you are asking yourself: ``Wait a minute! Isn't this kind of like, I don't know . . . welfare?''

No, it is not. Welfare is when the government gives money to people who produce nothing. Whereas the farm-money recipients produce something that is critical to our nation: votes. Powerful congresspersons from both parties, as well as President Bush, believe that if they dump enough of your money on farm states, the farm states will re-elect them, thus enabling them to continue the vital work of dumping your money on the farm states. So as we see, it's not welfare at all! It's bribery.

But let us not forget the element of National Security. This is where your mohair comes in. As you know, ''mohair'' is the hair of any animal whose name begins with ''mo,'' such as moose, mouse, mongoose or moray eel.

No, wait, sorry. ''Mohair'' is actually wool made from the hair of a goat. During WWII, mohair was used to make military uniforms, so it was considered to be a strategic material, and Congress decided that you, the taxpayer, should pay people to produce it. But of course today mohair has no vital military purpose, and so . . . you are STILL paying people to produce it! And thanks to the Farm Security Act, you will continue to pay millions and millions of dollars, every year, to mohair producers!

As I say, this is for National Security. If terrorists, God forbid, ever manage to construct a giant time machine and transport the United States back to 1941, and we have fight World War II again, WE WILL BE READY.

You will also be thrilled, as a taxpayer, to learn that the Farm Security Act provides new subsidies for producers of lentils and chickpeas. And not a moment too soon. This nation has become far too dependent on imported lentils and chickpeas. Try to picture the horror of living in a world in which foreigners, in foreign countries, suddenly cut off our lentil and chickpea supply. Imagine how you would feel if you had to look your small child in the eye and say, ``I'm sorry, little Billy or Suzy as the case may be, but there will be no lentils or chickpeas tonight, and all because we taxpayers were too shortsighted to fork over millions of dollars in support for domestic lentil and chickpea producers, who thus were forced to compete in the market like everybody else, and . . . HEY, COME BACK HERE!''
Yes, that would be a horrible world, all right. And that is why I totally support the Farm Security Act. I hope you agree with me, though I realize that some of you may not; in fact, some of you may be so angry about this column that you've decided to never read anything by me again.

Well, guess what: I don't care! Thanks to the Humor Security Act recently passed by Congress, I'll be getting huge sums of money from the federal government to
continue grinding out these columns, year after year, even if nobody wants to read them!

No, that would be stupid.

Source
Unfortunately I can't find the original source for this but the idea is still the same.

Is it not ridiculous that we still subsidize things like mohair? We need to put an end to the farm subsidies that have robbed our tax payers for the past 70 years. Couple this with Mr. Hettinga's recent loss against big dairy and it's obvious government intervention in this area is not even close to ideal.
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,559
4
0
IIRC under Clinton we had eliminated most farm subsidies.

However, milk price controls seem to be necessary evil since without them milk producers would consolidate to one or two suppliers per region and then milk prices would actually rise.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
I'm always amazed how much outrage people are able to work up over the well known kinds of welfare, yet people seem to care very little about huge subsidies to already wealthy companies, or awarding no-bid contracts to companies affiliated with powerful political figures. Maybe math isn't my thing, but I suspect we waste far more on that kind of thing than sending that $4 welfare check to that family in the inner city.
 

slash196

Golden Member
Nov 1, 2004
1,549
0
76
Big thumbs up for Dave Barry. One of my favorite humorists; if you like this you should read his columns from the 80s, he was all over Reagan and Congress then for pretty similar things.
 

HombrePequeno

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2001
4,657
0
0
Originally posted by: techs
IIRC under Clinton we had eliminated most farm subsidies.

However, milk price controls seem to be necessary evil since without them milk producers would consolidate to one or two suppliers per region and then milk prices would actually rise.

Tell that to the cotton industry.

From what it seems there are very few milk producers as it is. I don't think the removal of price controls would raise the price of milk very much if at all.

Rainford,

I agree. It seems odd that some people bitch and moan about social welfare programs but completely ignore corporate welfare.
 

slash196

Golden Member
Nov 1, 2004
1,549
0
76
Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
Originally posted by: techs
IIRC under Clinton we had eliminated most farm subsidies.

However, milk price controls seem to be necessary evil since without them milk producers would consolidate to one or two suppliers per region and then milk prices would actually rise.

Tell that to the cotton industry.

From what it seems there are very few milk producers as it is. I don't think the removal of price controls would raise the price of milk very much if at all.

Rainford,

I agree. It seems odd that some people bitch and moan about social welfare programs but completely ignore corporate welfare.

And considering corporate welfare is a much bigger chunk that contributes much less to the overall health of the society, it seems that we should focus on eliminating it first.
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,559
4
0
Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
Originally posted by: techs
IIRC under Clinton we had eliminated most farm subsidies.

However, milk price controls seem to be necessary evil since without them milk producers would consolidate to one or two suppliers per region and then milk prices would actually rise.

Tell that to the cotton industry.

From what it seems there are very few milk producers as it is. I don't think the removal of price controls would raise the price of milk very much if at all.

Rainford,

I agree. It seems odd that some people bitch and moan about social welfare programs but completely ignore corporate welfare.

Milk is not a government subsidy. Through a series of regional authorities a minimum price for milk is specified. The government does not pay any money into this.
By establishing a minimum price it allows far more producing companies to exist. Before and without these milk "compacts" (as they are sometimes called) one or two large companies sold milk a loss and put thousands of smaller milk farms, mostly family farms, out of business. Once the competition was eliminated the price of milk rose above what it had been under the expired compact.
Milk is unique in that it is considered a "necessity" for children, and the large number of smaller suppliers that exist to supply it. Milk also is produced on a small profit margin, allowing large companies to easily put small companies with small monetary reserves (family farms) out of business quite easily. Leading to easily created monopolies and duopolies.
Supporting the milk compacts MAY cause a very slight increase in the price of milk, but many say eliminating the milk compacts will eventually lead to single or dual milk producer dominance raising the price of milk above what it is today.

 

Strk

Lifer
Nov 23, 2003
10,197
4
76
Originally posted by: techs
IIRC under Clinton we had eliminated most farm subsidies.

However, milk price controls seem to be necessary evil since without them milk producers would consolidate to one or two suppliers per region and then milk prices would actually rise.

They were reduced, but sadly, they were not eliminated. They've tripled under Bush though.
 

HombrePequeno

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2001
4,657
0
0
Originally posted by: techs
Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
Originally posted by: techs
IIRC under Clinton we had eliminated most farm subsidies.

However, milk price controls seem to be necessary evil since without them milk producers would consolidate to one or two suppliers per region and then milk prices would actually rise.

Tell that to the cotton industry.

From what it seems there are very few milk producers as it is. I don't think the removal of price controls would raise the price of milk very much if at all.

Rainford,

I agree. It seems odd that some people bitch and moan about social welfare programs but completely ignore corporate welfare.

Milk is not a government subsidy. Through a series of regional authorities a minimum price for milk is specified. The government does not pay any money into this.
By establishing a minimum price it allows far more producing companies to exist. Before and without these milk "compacts" (as they are sometimes called) one or two large companies sold milk a loss and put thousands of smaller milk farms, mostly family farms, out of business. Once the competition was eliminated the price of milk rose above what it had been under the expired compact.

Milk is unique in that it is considered a "necessity" for children, and the large number of smaller suppliers that exist to supply it. Milk also is produced on a small profit margin, allowing large companies to easily put small companies with small monetary reserves (family farms) out of business quite easily. Leading to easily created monopolies and duopolies.

Supporting the milk compacts MAY cause a very slight increase in the price of milk, but many say eliminating the milk compacts will eventually lead to single or dual milk producer dominance raising the price of milk above what it is today.

Looking at some statistics for California which is a major producer of milk shows that this price floor largely goes to support larger dairy farms. Well over half of the dairy farms in California have over 200 milk cows. This may have gone to support the smaller farms back in the 1930s but that isn't the case in this day and age.

I'm perfectly fine with dairy farms coming together to decide on a price for milk. But I don't agree with them going to the government and complaining that a newcomer is lowering the price of milk 20 cents lower than theirs and that it is unfair. The government has no business deciding on that aspect.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Dont red states get something like $2.50 got every dollar they pay in taxes? I think there is a lot more than just farmer welfare there to arrive at these huge windfalls. Anyway It's pretty simple why corp and argibusiness get away with it.. it's complicated. While most Americans cans wrap thier little minds around the concept of some welfare cheat in thier gorcery line, usually buying steaks and soda while they buy Top Romen.. Understanding corp and farm welfare is far more complex and unseen. For example the biggest example of "corporate welfare" in the US is the GI Bill/Pell Grants etc which subsidized the academic sector, bloating it far beyond the level the market would have provided. Many of you never considered it I'm sure,