Posted on 12/05/2001 2:52:29 AM PST by brityank
The watermelon orgs have millions of dollars they have stolen out of your pockets through tax deductions and charities. The ranchers and farmers are a target.
Here's a salute to all of the morons who think that the 'Services Work Model' can retain America's industries and self-sufficiency breadbasket through NAFTA and GATT.
Get ready for $10/loaf; $20/milk; and $50/steak.
The land will now be leased for what it is worth, and the broken business models of the ranchers will no longer be subsidized by our tax dollars.
Even better, the environmentalist groups will have to buy their influence directly in cold cash to the benefit of the people, rather than in lobbying dollars going to the rich.
I only hope this example is followed in forestry, where now if you buy the rights to a section of forest, you MUST cut down the trees there. Let the environmental groups pay top dollar instead of spiking trees. They'll only be able to afford it for so long, since they make no money off of the land. Any maybe it'll empty the lobbying coffers.
But my greatest hope is that this marks the beginning of the end for our government's socialist farm and ranching subsidies.
Beware the unintended consequences. Grazing land is taken out of service - the ranchers have to overage the parcels they are using to keep their volume up. Maybe some ranchers go out of business and sell their ranches to developers.
Also, won't this effect the tax base of the local governments since the land will not be in any type of production?
This is capitalism at it's best! Finally, an end to the socialist government-sponsored monopoly that the powerful cattle ranchers associations have been able to lobby into effect.
Wrong. This is outright welfare-state communism; "To each according to their needs, from each according to their abilities."
The land will now be leased for what it is worth, and the broken business models of the ranchers will no longer be subsidized by our tax dollars.
It is worth what you can grow on it; corn, cows, or million dollar estates. You can't eat million dollar estates.
Even better, the environmentalist groups will have to buy their influence directly in cold cash to the benefit of the people, rather than in lobbying dollars going to the rich.
Except for the few agribusinesses, the farmers and ranchers are cash-poor; their wealth is tied up in the land and equipment. And where do you thing the watermelon groups get their money? Hint: Look at the tax code sometime.
I only hope this example is followed in forestry, where now if you buy the rights to a section of forest, you MUST cut down the trees there. Let the environmental groups pay top dollar instead of spiking trees. They'll only be able to afford it for so long, since they make no money off of the land. Any maybe it'll empty the lobbying coffers.
Their coffers have become the bottomless pit of the government and charity largess 'cause it feels good and right.
But my greatest hope is that this marks the beginning of the end for our government's socialist farm and ranching subsidies.
This I can agree with; subsidies are killing all types of productive endeavors in this country.
Bottom line, we get what we deserve whether it be by actions or just mere acceptance.
How is putting the land out to the true highest bidder a welfare state, as opposed to keeping the bidding closed to a small group of people, and ensuring an undervalued sale to benefit those people?
"It is worth what you can grow on it; corn, cows, or million dollar estates. You can't eat million dollar estates. "
We already produce more corn, etc., than we can eat, bringing on the infamous subsidies. At least a mansion will produce tax revenue rather than costing the taxpayer money.
"Except for the few agribusinesses, the farmers and ranchers are cash-poor; their wealth is tied up in the land and equipment."
I hate to say this, especially at a time where I'm personally looking for another job due to losing this one, but if they are in a business that requires government subsidies (our tax dollars) and protection to survive, my sympathy level isn't really that high.
"Their coffers have become the bottomless pit of the government and charity largess 'cause it feels good and right. "
AFAIK, the the eco groups lobby just like everyone else. If they get any government money, it's through the same method the farmers get their money. It's a level, albeit corrupt, playing field. They do get charitable donations as farmers get profits.
You agree with killing subsidies, but you also desire for this particular one to continue? Ending subsidies is always painful, but it must be done.
Grange Leader Calls for More, Not Less Farming
Calls Dairy Compacts Most Innovative Agricultural Innovation of 1996 Farm Bill
Cedar Rapids, IA (November 12, 2001) - Speaking to the 135th annual convention of the National Grange, Kermit W. Richardson, National Master (President), called on Congress to create a new Farm Bill that will "…encourage increased participation in agriculture by the largest number of individuals and families through the broadest possible distribution of agricultural assets possible." Contrary to popular thinking that the United States currently has too many farmers and too much production, Richardson hammered home the point that, "Our nation does not suffer from having too many farmers. Our nation's food security is threatened by having too few farmers!"
Richardson called for legislation that will benefit a broad spectrum of farmers rather than favor the few and to reject legislation that will lead to continued consolidation in American agriculture. He also called for legislation that will allow the current generation of farmers to retire with dignity and to easily pass on farm assets to the next generation without onerous financial burdens.
Technical Assistance vs. Land Retirement
Keeping with his theme of "more, not less farming," Richardson pointed out that 92% of all Federal conservation dollars go to land retirement programs and that nearly every state is woefully under funded in technical assistance programs that "help farmers to produce food and fiber in harmony with the environment." He revealed that the host state, Iowa, had funding to cover only 37% of its technical assistance needs. Richardson strongly pointed out that current House legislation would only exacerbate the shortcomings in technical assistance.
This new book introduces a free-market environmental management system that gradually eliminates the need for permits, regulations, and agency law-enforcement. The system's design starts with proven manufacturing process-verification techniques with risk-management and quality-assurance principles used to assure consumer product integrity. These components are organized into a system of checks and balances that induce a market, capable of objectively pricing the use of natural assets, without political intervention. It can improve our care of the environment in harmony with an advanced economy.
This five-part work demonstrates that regulatory government operates under false premises, leaving agencies dependent upon continuing problems, incapable of balancing competing risks, and subject to corrupt influences. The book makes its case with detailed analyses of original source data that reveal a new way to do better for nature. It proposes specific examples and suggests an implementing strategy. It is a thought-provoking work that handles an emotional subject with a delightful sense of humor.
When the envirals "rent" these allotments, what happens to the local communities that are dependent upon the circulating dollars initiated by agriculture? (Usually circulates from 5-7 times through the community.)
As for the checkerboard issue, in an open range state, people who don't want cattle on their land must fence it off. (The feds. are an exception.) I think what will happen here is that the cattle will continue to graze the land rented by the envirals under open-range. That is unless the envirals wish to fence miles and miles of land.
To everyone here: what industry are you in? Does the government directly subsidize your industry (doesn't count contracts for goods and services the government wants)? Is the government going to spend billions on "technical assistance programs" to help auto mechanics as a whole fix cars "in harmony with the environment"? No, they'll just pass a regulation telling you not to dump your old oil. Farming seems to have a special place in everyone's hearts, and its put on a higher level than other businesses.
I really like "legislation that will allow the current generation of farmers to retire with dignity." Please, I'd like to retire with dignity now without having to worry about social security or how much is in my 401K -- give me the money!
This guy is talking about more and more subsidies. Subsidies cost us twice: once in taxes and again in higher prices at the grocery store. The only beneficiaries are a small number of farmers. As brityank said, This is outright welfare-state communism; "To each according to their needs, from each according to their abilities."
However, "easily pass on farm assets to the next generation without onerous financial burdens" is right. The estate tax on farmers is one of the worst things I've ever seen, making farmers incorporate just to shield their assets, and making it literally too expensive to die.
And get real everyone. Do you actually think a farm bill that is fair to small farmers will ever get passed anyway? ADM and ilk have far too much power in Congress, with most farming state Reps and Senators in their pockets.
They'll not necessarily get to rent them. The land is now out to fair, open bid, and the farmers can still get them if they are willing to pay (oh, I tremble at the concept of a farmer paying this...) fair market value.
As far as the towns, we have had ghost towns before. Did the government keep subsidizing mining to protect towns then the metals ran out? What about old steel towns in PA? Why do farmers deserve such special consideration?
However, one safeguard that I think would be apropriate is if they require that all funds to lease land with must originate within the state. This would keep large national coffers from unfairly affecting local actions (kind of like when the Christian Coalition descends upon a local school board election that was amateur and low-budget until then).
FDR began tinkering with the prices in the 1940s, but promised "parity" with other prices would be built into such tinkering. (He lied.)
It should be no surprise that Americans pay the least percentage of their income for food than any other country. You would be shocked if you looked at comodity income, (as to what the farmer/rancher gets for raw product,) in comparison with what he got 50 years ago. There is no appreciable difference. It is a scandal.
American farmers are seeing wave after wave of foreign growers dumping on an segment of the industry just like they have done with the steel industry. American growers can't compete and down come permanent orchards, etc. More and more fields are converted to tract housing and suburbs grow bigger and bigger.
Ask Carey Okie....Except for a few subsidized products with price supports, America has become a net importer of food. Think about that...we no longer grow enough food to feed our population. Think about that trend and how it impacts national security. Think about what that means for American international affairs and for trends toward globalization. Think about transfer of wealth to other nations, impact on world environments, health and safety standards for the food you eat, importation of pests.
Under basic economic theories, the entire economy rests on the foundation of supplying raw materials. Every dollar of raw material produced creates at least 7 dollars in the overall economy (value added.) It is the source of real wealth and it is renewable. Can't you see the shift to other countries and how this is affecting our standard of living and economy?
You whine about mechanics and farmers, but that is like comparing apples and rocks. Farmers have talked among themselves for a long time about striking to get a decent return on their product. Unfortunately, they live so tightly, and service such large debt, they can't. I almost wish they would just to bring to urban people's attention the fact that their entire "civilization" and economy rests on the shoulders of these hard-working folks.
websites on "parity": http://www.countrylovin.com/morefacts.html http://www.cnie.org/nle/crsreports/agriculture/ag-60.cfm http://www.normeconomics.org/parity.html http://waysandmeans.house.gov/fullcomm/106cong/4-13-00/4-13powe.htm
We already have ways of dealing with dumping -- tariffs. We do it all the time. However, don't call all importing "dumping."
"Ask Carey Okie....Except for a few subsidized products with price supports, America has become a net importer of food."
1996 Annual Report of the President of the United States on the Trade Agreements Program:
"Under basic economic theories, the entire economy rests on the foundation of supplying raw materials. "
Under about the most basic economic theory, specialization, if Mexico can grow oranges cheaper and better than we can, while in the U.S., we're moving to a more highly-developed, high-tech economy, then we should import Mexico's oranges. It makes no sense economically for us to continue to produce them.
"I almost wish they would just to bring to urban people's attention the fact that their entire "civilization" and economy rests on the shoulders of these hard-working folks."
This reminds me of the time in the Army. The fuel supply people telling tankers they'd get nowhere without them, the tankers saying that without them, there'd be no reason to be there, etc.
Our entire civilization rests on more than farmers. I'm in IT -- what would happen if all the comptuers went away? Cars? Electricity? Actually, I'd say the sewage treatment people are the most important.
Why is it that farmers are always accorded such special status? They're in a business just like the rest of us. If they can't make it, they should get out of the business. For the record, I mostly grew up in rural Colorado.
My solution: remove the price suports, subsidies and incentives for farmers to not grow crops (which in themselves shows you we grow too much -- maybe that land should be converted). Remove all but the basic food safety regulations. Then let, for example, milk be sold for what it's worth. Lots of farmers will go out of business, and lots of farmers will get rich. The prices will fluctuate wildly for a little while, then settle down to probably a little less than now. The plus side is no more tax dollars wasted.
It may be a somewhat radical solution, but then I'm a bit crazy. For some reason I thought we had a captialist system, not a socialist one.
Easy enough. The plants will find far less nutritional value in the environmental BS than there is in the Bovine variety.
A local rancher (North Dakota)wanted to run a water line on the surface to a water tank 1/4 mile away along an existing fenceline. The BLM wanted him to have Archaeological, botanical, raptor, and other surveys conducted at a cost of over $50,000 to run a water line along the ground.
He told the BLM "I guess everything is going to have to walk a little farther to get a drink.
The BLM ignored the fact that antelope, deer, and other animals benefit as well as the livestock, as well as the fact that existing structures (The fence) had already disturbed things more than laying plastic pipe on the surface would.
If local hunters could lease the land, and sub lease the grazing rights (while retaining the ability to hunt there), maybe this would help solve the problem, after all, the ecowhackos want to eliminate both groups. Could be a mutually beneficial partnership. Most 'grazing' land left to go to pot is pretty lousy after a short period. CRP has shown that to be the case. It provides habitat, but the old growth reduces the food value.
Not until the Mexicans get a monopoly on oranges, it doesn't. All the high tech in the world won't put a bite in your belly, but high tech devices have made US farmers some of the most efficient in the world.
We had farms before computers, cars, or electricity. While these have made farming more efficient (so fewer people have to farm), they do not replace growing food. Without food, the sewage treatment people would be out of a job in short order.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.