Republican Hypocrisy and Socialism

I was amused when I heard our illustrious Alabama Legislators from the U.S. Congress speaking of the recent farm bill passage in the U.S. House of Representatives. We always hear of "political double speak" among politicians but it's generally when pointing fingers at the opposing party. Yet, being a conservative, I have been extremely disappointed in our Republican Representation at the Federal level. The party, that has declared themselves the champions of conservative causes, has repeatedly failed to deliver on any promise of spending cuts at the Federal level. While I understand that they face strong opposition and difficult circumstances, they still have had ample opportunities of which they have just chose not to take advantage. The Farm Bill is pinnacle in Republican Party lies, double speak, cronyism and pork spending that could have and should have been defeated and re-written from scratch.

Let's review the published comments from a couple of our state's representatives:

"The revised Farm Bill is a positive step for agriculture policy," Rep. Martha Roby (R) said. "This bill contains many reforms we've been working on for two years, including ending direct payments, consolidating more than 100 duplicative programs and several regulatory relief measures. It offers parity for Alabama farmers and restricts the increasingly-frequent practice of paying landowners to let fertile cropland go unplanted – a reform I proposed originally.

"However, by removing the nutrition components of the bill, we have missed a unique opportunity to reform government and rein in spending. The original Farm Bill contained reforms that would have saved taxpayers $20 billion by reducing waste, fraud and abuse in the food stamp program. Without these badly-needed reforms, the unrestrained food stamp spending policies left over from the Pelosi Congress will continue.

"I voted for the revised Farm Bill because it protects Alabama farmers and moves federal agriculture policy in the right direction. But, I fear that we missed a rare opportunity to reform a mandatory government spending program. I've made it a priority during my time in Congress to find ways to rein in reckless government spending through responsible reforms, and that will remain my priority despite this setback."

and

Rep. Mike Rodgers (R) said, "The House's passage of this Farm Bill is an important step towards helping support our Farmers, and ensuring America's food is grown in America."

Now, let's review some of the provisions in this "wonderful" piece of legislation our representatives voted for and came home to "sell" to us.

To begin with, the "cuts" in the House bill were from the proposed spending amount, the actual spending is a 56% increase from $604 billion in 2008 to $940 billion (the Senate version is slightly higher at $955 billion). The program is reviewed every 5 years.

Well, knee jerk response is "it's to help the farmers". Well, let's just look at who gets paid and what the bill truly subsidizes.

Quoting the Wall Street Journal:

"The federal subsidy in the House bill guarantees farmers of Japonica Rice that if market prices drop below 115% of the average price of all types of rice, they will get a government payment to make up the difference...The move shines a light on guarantees against drops in commodity prices that are in some ways replacing the much-maligned direct payments to farmers Congress is seeking to end. Subsidies for products such as corn, wheat and cotton cost taxpayers about $5 billion a year."

Quoting the Huffington Post (yes, I know it's a liberal rag, but they make a valid point):

"But in passing the farm bill, Republicans demonstrated that they are just fine with bloated welfare programs as long as those welfare payments go to well-healed special interests.

In 2011, the last year for which full data is available, the average farm household had an income of $87,289, 25 percent higher than the average for all U.S. households. And about a third of the farm subsidies go to the largest four percent of farm operators. If you want to see real "welfare queens," look no further than Pilgrim's Pride, Tyler Farms, and Riceland Foods.

This version of the farm bill would cost taxpayers more than $195 billion over the next 10 years. And while some Republicans have tried to portray this as a cut, which is only according to the Washington-game of measuring increases relative to CBO's projected baseline. In many ways this bill is to the left of proposals from President Obama. Any Republican who voted for this bill and then claims to care about the debt or deficits should be laughed off the stage.

It is true that this farm bill takes some small steps toward reforming some of the worst aspects of farm policy, notably by reducing (but not eliminating) "direct payments" to farmers if there is a decline in commodity prices, regardless of how much they actually planted or how much they would sell their crops for. But the savings from direct payment cuts are simply shifted to an increase in crop insurance programs.

Under this bill, taxpayers would subsidize roughly 62 percent of the premium costs for farmers who buy insurance to shield themselves against sharp fluctuations in prices. The insurance effectively enables farmers to lock in high prices no matter their crop size. The farm bill doesn't just maintain this program for traditional beneficiaries such as wheat, soybean, cotton, rice, peanut, and dairy farmers, it expands the subsidies to include the fishing industry or "seafood harvesters," alfalfa grower and the producers of biomass and sweet sorghum. In addition, the bill includes special peanut revenue insurance, funds to study extending insurance to cover losses dues to food recalls or health advisories related to contamination, and protection against business interruption of poultry producers.

The bill would also spend $3 billion to cover farmers' deductibles before their crop insurance kicks in, in part to offset the end of the direct payments scheme. As a result, farmers will be almost completely insulated from any potential losses."

Quoting Reason Magazine:

"Under the USDA’s crop insurance scheme, the federal government pays nearly two-thirds of farmers’ crop insurance premiums.

If that sounds absurd to you, you’re not alone. Last year, a Minneapolis Star-Tribune editorial referred to federally subsidized crop insurance as a “boondoggle” that “throw[s] money at farmers, whether they need it or not.

Which farmers get crop insurance subsidies? Who knows?

Since at least 2000, the federal government has hidden from public view the names of crop producers.

In 2011, 26 farms each received more than $1 million in taxpayer-funded crop subsidy premiums, according to data provided by the Environmental Working Group.

Likely due to the fact Congress failed to pass a new Farm Bill last year, about 100 skittish national lobbying groups called on the Senate earlier this week to put the Farm Bill to a vote....

....MSNBC host Lawrence O'Donnell, who refers to himself as a socialist, has been blasting GOP members of the House and Senate rightly for some time now for protecting what O'Donnell calls "agricultural socialism."

Like me, it’s the bipartisan nature of farm subsidies that most sickens O’Donnell.

'No socialist program gets more unbridled bipartisan support than agriculture socialism, our single worst and stupid and most inefficient form of socialism in this country,' he said earlier this week."

Secret payouts...private subsidies. Heck...my social media conversations and cell phone data isn't even secret, yet taxpayers can't get information on whom we are paying money to and why. When a government official denies access to information, it's always because they don't want you to know.

The socialist approach our federal government's farm policy has always taken regarding milk production has been crony at best and criminal worst.  While they did change the quota system for milk production which had limited the amount of milk allowed to go to market and maintain a higher market price (yes, that means you pay more for milk than if free market competition dictated the price...sound socialistic?...it is), they replaced it with an insurance program for dairy farmers similar to the one mentioned above. The Senate version still seeks to limit production and fine dairy farmers who produce "too much milk".  "Sorry Miss Cow...we have to strap a rubber band on that teet."

Let's talk about sugar. Our illustrious leaders maintained the import tax on sugar in order to protect the market price of sugar for U.S. farmers. The additional tariffs and increased market price cost U.S. citizens about $3.5 billion a year in additional grocery spending. Did you know we pay the highest prices on the globe for milk and sugar? Next time your at the grocery store, ask yourself if you are paying a  a true free market price for your groceries or a government protected higher "market price". I can assure you...the latter is the answer.

So, when your "free market", "capitalist" and "middle class protector" Republican Representative asks for your vote...ask them what they are doing to free up the farming markets in order to lower our grocery bills. Then ask why a Farm Bill designed to reduce spending is will actually cost 56% more than the 2008 version when inflation over that period has only been 8%. Then email me the picture of their face as they stammer for an answer.

As for the lone opponent of the bill in Alabama:

Rep. Terri Sewell (D) said that, "If we are to truly help, mean something to America, we must take care of our working families, our needy families, our children, in addition to our farmers."

"We cannot provide government subsidies to farmers without providing government assistance to people in poverty. It is not what we as Americans stand for."

Sewell said that, "If we are to truly help, mean something to America, we must take care of our working families, our needy families, our children, in addition to our farmers."

"We cannot provide government subsidies to farmers without providing government assistance to people in poverty. It is not what we as Americans stand for."

While I disagree with expanding the SNAP program and agree that it needs to be significantly rolled back, I have to give Mrs. Sewell credit for being polite. Yet, I guess politeness in Washington only applies when they are hiding each other's crony politics and socialistic ideologies.

Political Opinions

While perusing a few articles over the weekend and listening to a nearly three hour dissertation on John Locke's Two Treatise on Civil Government during my five hour drive, something occurred to me. It was the question of how people arrive at the political opinions. In my mental exercise, I have developed a theory. People form their political ideals two ways, ideologically or situationally. These two methods stretch beyond the realms of intelligence and culture. So, let's examine each.

The person that uses ideology to arrive at a political opinion, looks at the issue and filters it through their ideology. Most people's ideology is a series of strict and ordered personal "rules" of society and government. If the issue flows through those filters and arrives at the other end relatively in tact, they can support it. If it arrives "broken and sliced apart" by the blades and teeth of their ideology, they tend to oppose the issue.

So, how do "Ideologists" form their ideologies? These are developed in many different manners. Studying political theory, the media, their religious doctrine, their culture and peers. All of these things work to form an ideology. Some ideologies are classical political thought and theories...others are prejudiced and narrow. All have one thing in common. The owner of the "ideology" has developed some rules, in which they are comfortable, to apply the political ideas and agendas that they are presented.

The "Situationist" (for lack of a better word) is generally a "fix it now" person. They don't view political issues as potential "laws" or "regulations", instead they are viewed as problems to be solved. They look through the solution and if it seems reasonable, executable and solves the problem, they are generally in support. If the solution is restrictive, unreasonable and doesn't truly address the problem, they are not in support.

"Situationist" develop their ideals similarly to ideologists except that they tend to live in the moment, are very concerned about the immediate pressing issues and a resolution for the good of society. They tend to not get involved in the details as much as the solving of societies problems on the large scale. They tend to have legitimate concern for their fellow citizen but also are short sighted to the long implications of the policies they support.

These two methods of arriving at a political opinion both have value but it does seem to blur the lines of "conservative" and "liberal". In conversations with people that I assume I have similar beliefs, I find myself on the opposite side of an argument. It's not always because of us being either conservative or liberal, it's the manner in which we have viewed and interpreted the issue.