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.
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.