Farm Subsidies and the Farm Bill: Truth vs. Fiction

Farm reform will never get up without "adjustment" assistance.  The government will have to offer something to help farmers adjust to new realities.  If use of corn alcohol in motor fuel no longer becomes compulsory, for instance, something will have to be offered to make use of now surplus ethanol. 

One idea that might not be too wild would be to go to amateur distillers worldwide in search of several new forms of corn spirits for human consumption -- several new types of corn whisky, for instance. Maybe even a corn liqueur. A liqueur called "Moonshine" should be attractive if only because of the name

The government could then sponsor a big advertising blast to get people to try the new product. Success would all depend on attractive products being devised but that should not be beyond the wit of man


Like immigration, health care and other seemingly endless legislative quarrels, agriculture is a highly contentious issue every time Congress grapples with it. So this week’s House farm bill is simply par for the course. The Heritage Foundation’s Daren Bakst has produced an excellent compilation of critical amendments that should graduate to the finalized bill. Unfortunately, these amendments — just like past reform proposals — will be in the crosshairs of subsidy-obsessed special interests.

As Bakst explains in a Daily Signal op-ed, “Agricultural special interests try to make it sound as though touching even one farm subsidy — regardless of how unreasonable the subsidy is — will be the end of agriculture as we know it. Using scare tactics, they will assert wild claims without any support, or they will cherry-pick data to provide a misleading picture.” Sound familiar? That’s because global warming scaremongers apply the same tactic.

The truth is less menacing. For example, while special interest groups assert that farmers are financially strapped and therefore require subsidies, Bakst points to the opposite: “Farm households have far greater median income and wealth than non-farm households.” This means that, as of 2016, 70% of farm households reported higher earnings, and farmer wages averaged about 29% higher. In terms of aggregate wealth, farmers’ average of $897,000 dwarfs that of other households, which stands at a relatively paltry $97,300.

Another farce revolves around the supposedly deteriorating economy. While the agriculture economy is admittedly off its peak, Bakst notes that “key financial indicators such as debt-to-asset ratios are near historic lows.” Besides, he reminds us: “What other sector of the economy expects regular taxpayer handouts when things aren’t going well? The very assumption that taxpayers should protect farmers from competing in the market like every other business shows the egregious nature of the current subsidy system.”

A few additional pointers: The rural economy’s troubles have little to do with farming — “only about 6 percent of rural jobs are in farming,” says Bakst — and subsidies are disproportionately divided among small family and commercial farms (guess which one profits the most?). This contradicts the narrative that subsidies are primarily needed to propel small family farms. The number of family farms, by the way, is not in a tailspin, as special interests claim.

Believe it or not, there’s even a national security angle when it comes to subsidies. But as Bakst points out, “There are no national security problems for almost all commodities that receive little to no subsidies,” which happens to be most agricultural commodities.

Let’s also not belittle the most important fact — taxpayers are on the hook for every subsidiary element. Even with crop insurance, taxpayers foot 62% of the premium bill. And when it comes to sugar, the economy takes a $3.7 billion hit annually despite the special interest groups’ laughable claim that it’s a financially neutral program. The reality is that the poor are hardest hit. The farm bill is currently constructed in a way that ignores these realities. It can, however, be amended. We’ll soon see how Congress considers a priority — special interest groups, or taxpayers.

SOURCE

*******************************

Trump turns up heat on Obama, Brennan amid 'informant' questions:  demands DOJ probe

Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano on President Trump calling on the Department of Justice to investigate allegations the FBI spied on his 2016 presidential campaign.

President Trump sought to turn the tables on the Obama administration Monday after demanding a probe into whether his predecessor’s FBI “infiltrated” his 2016 campaign, pointedly asking what then-President Barack Obama knew about the operation – while clashing with former CIA boss John Brennan.

Following reports detailing how an FBI “informant” had multiple contacts with members of Trump’s campaign, the president said Sunday he’d formally seek a DOJ probe of whether agents surveilled the campaign for political purposes, and whether any such demands came from the Obama administration.

While the DOJ swiftly asked the department’s inspector general to handle that review, the president turned the spotlight Monday to Obama.

“The Wall Street Journal asks, ‘WHERE IN THE WORLD WAS BARACK OBAMA?’ A very good question!” Trump tweeted.

He was referring to an op-ed calling on Obama to explain “his administration’s surveillance of affiliates of a presidential campaign.” The column from James Freeman posited that Obama was likely “fairly well-informed” about his law enforcement agencies, but said if he was unaware of the Russia probe’s full history, “then it would seem a public explanation is also in order—about his management, and about just how far the ‘deep state’ went without specific presidential approval.”

Former Secret Service agent says Brennan is responsible for Americans' loss of faith in the intelligence community.
Meanwhile, another dust-up between the president and Brennan took shape as the former CIA director, and now MSNBC/NBC contributor, warned Republican leaders in Congress not to “enable” Trump, in response to his call for an investigation.

“Senator McConnell & Speaker Ryan: If Mr. Trump continues along this disastrous path, you will bear major responsibility for the harm done to our democracy. You do a great disservice to our Nation & the Republican Party if you continue to enable Mr. Trump’s self-serving actions,” Brennan tweeted, while also quoting Roman philosopher Cicero: “Any man can make mistakes, but only an idiot persists in his error.”

Trump fired back by quoting, at length, former Secret Service agent Dan Bongino on “Fox & Friends,” as Bongino accused Brennan of sparking the entire Russia probe and taking part in a politically motivated investigation.

Brennan has been a vocal critic of Trump ever since he took office.

The precise origins of the Russia probe remain unclear. Officials have previously pointed to comments Trump adviser George Papadopoulos allegedly made about Russian dirt on Hillary Clinton as touching off the investigation in July 2016. A House GOP memo released earlier this year affirmed this timeline.

But reporting over the weekend in The New York Times and Washington Post said an informant was also talking to Papadopoulos and other Trump figures in 2016. The details have raised questions about what prompted those contacts.

The revelations come amid a tense dispute between the Justice Department and House Republicans who have been seeking details about the informant’s role. Trump referenced that standoff on Saturday, tweeting: “Only the release or review of documents that the House Intelligence Committee (also, Senate Judiciary) is asking for can give the conclusive answers. Drain the Swamp!”

The FBI’s probe of Russian meddling in the 2016 election and possible collusion with Trump figures would eventually be taken over by Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team. The intelligence community, and Senate Intelligence Committee, have since declared that Russia did seek to interfere in the election, largely to boost Trump over Clinton.

But in looking to turn up new information on how the probe began – and suggesting political motivations were at play – Trump and his allies on Capitol Hill could undermine the Mueller’s probe just as Trump and his legal team are weighing the possibility of a Trump interview with the special counsel.

Meanwhile, Obama has said little about the probe’s beginnings, and it’s unclear if he plans to enter this highly charged debate.

One of the few references to his involvement came in texts released earlier this year from anti-Trump FBI officials Lisa Page and Peter Strzok. In one of them, the two discussed preparing talking points for then-FBI boss James Comey to give Obama, who wanted to “know everything we’re doing.”

SOURCE

********************************

Trade War Ceasefire?

From the beginning, we argued that President Donald Trump's planned tariffs were a negotiating chip with China. That became even more clear over the weekend, as China announced that it would buy "significantly" more U.S. goods and services. According to a White House statement, that will include "meaningful increases in United States agriculture and energy exports" with the goal being to "substantially reduce the United States trade deficit in goods with China." Let's hope it also brings back some American jobs.

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin declared that the U.S. was "putting the trade war on hold" as negotiations continue, but U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer insisted tariffs remain on the table if needed to "protect our technology." Good cop, bad cop.

Keep in mind that trade is tied together with negotiations over the nuclear weapons program of China's puppet, North Korea. The upcoming June 12 summit between Trump and Kim Jong-un is crucial, and sorting things out on the trade front with China is key. Hence other chess moves like canceling a planned training exercise with South Korea.

In short, this isn't nearly as simple as the mainstream media sometimes portrays. Trump's negotiations are all part of a long game.

SOURCE

********************************

‘It’s Not a Gun-Law Issue’: 18-Year-Old Tells Texas Gov ‘Shooting Is About More Than Firearms’

While David Hogg and crew are running around the country screaming ‘Gun-Control.’ this 18-year old ‘survivor’ understands that there is so much more going on.


Of course that’s obvious to anyone who isn’t zoned in to the anti-gun rhetoric spewing forth from every channel on TV, but it’s nice to hear the truth coming from a young person who just experienced one of life’s most horrifying moments.

According to ijr.com:
.
Monica Bracknell, an 18-year-old ‘survivor’ who knew one of the teachers killed during the shooting at Santa Fe High School, told Gov. Greg Abbott (R-Texas) that the shooting is about school security, not gun laws.
.
On Sunday, Abbott addressed members of Arcadia First Baptist Church before services began. According to the Wall Street Journal, he explained that he was there to “comfort my fellow Texans.” He also said he was open to speeding background checks and preventing people who pose a threat to others from getting firearms.
.
The Associated Press (AP) reported Bracknell, who survived the shooting, seized the opportunity to meet the governor and share her views on the issue of gun control.
.
“People are making this into a political issue,” she shared with the AP she told him. “It’s not a political issue. It’s not a gun-law issue.”

According to the Wall Street Journal, she added that the recent high school shooting shows that there’s a major problem with school safety, “It’s a, this-kid-was-able-to-get-into-the-school-very-easily, issue,” she said.

Jerl Watkins, the interim senior pastor at the church, explained that there are “no words” that can take away the pain the 10 families of the victims are feeling and called for more than just prayers.

“Do we need to do more than just pray?” he asked. “Yes, we most certainly do.”

The recent shooting reignited an already fierce debate about gun control in the country, but the Los Angeles Times reported that in the wake of the shooting, the Santa Fe students, unlike Parkland, Florida, students, haven’t vocalized a strong cry for increased gun control.

At a vigil on Friday evening, the Los Angeles Times reported the issue of guns didn’t come up, and on Saturday there were no protests, and there weren’t an expected for Sunday.

“We have created a culture that does not value life, that does not honor God, that does not respect authority,” Rev. Brad Drake, who lost a member of his congregation in the shooting.

He added that now, we’re “reaping the consequences of those actions,” and no security guard or metal detector can reverse what’s been created.

Eight students and two teachers were killed during the shooting on Friday. Accused shooter Dimitrios Pagourtzis, was arrested and faces charges of capital murder and aggravated assault of a public servant.”

SOURCE

*********************************

CCRKBA to Antis: ‘When Will You Blame the Murderers?’

Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, has issued a challenge to the gun prohibition lobby. Following last week’s attack at Santa Fe High School in Texas that left ten dead and another ten wounded, Gottlieb wants to know why anti-gun groups never seem to blame the perpetrators of such horrendous crimes.

“Time after time,” he said in a Monday news release, “with endless fund raising appeals and inflammatory rhetoric, we’ve seen these anti-rights lobbying groups immediately try to shift blame to the NRA, or the Second Amendment, or the firearms industry, or some mythical loophole in the law. But they never seem to point their fingers at the culprit, and we think it’s time for the American public to ask why?”

Why, indeed? Gottlieb suspects that the mission of these gun grabbers is not to keep “dangerous or deranged criminals off the street,” but to infringe on the Second Amendment rights of honest citizens.

By diverting public attention away from killers and toward law-abiding citizens who had nothing to do with the crime, Gottlieb suggested in his statement, “these lobbying groups have created a very strong impression that they’re not really interested in punishing criminals, but only in penalizing honest firearms owners for crimes they didn’t commit.”

“Over the weekend, Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety was quick to push its gun control agenda, and the Alliance for Gun Responsibility was asking for donations to ‘take a stand…against the gun lobby.’ When was the last time either of these groups demanded swift justice and certainty of punishment for the actual perpetrators?”—CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb

“Time and again,” he stated, “we’ve heard these groups demand a national dialogue on guns. But how do you have a rational discussion with people or groups that repeatedly demonstrate that they cannot tell the difference between the bad guys and the good guys?

“If all they can do is blame innocent citizens while diverting attention from murderous monsters, then it is time to ask these people just whose side they are on,” Gottlieb concluded.

SOURCE

************************************

For more blog postings from me, see  TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH,  POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, and Paralipomena (Occasionally updated),  a Coral reef compendium and an IQ compendium. (Both updated as news items come in).  GUN WATCH is now mainly put together by Dean Weingarten. I also put up occasional updates on my Personal blog and each day I gather together my most substantial current writings on THE PSYCHOLOGIST.

Email me  here (Hotmail address). My Home Pages are here (Academic) or  here (Pictorial) or  here  (Personal)

***************************