Once upon a time there was a Club with millions of members. Lets call it UNSTAM, the Unified Neopolitan Society for Terrific American Members. In its original bylaws, the governing body was given the mandate to defend the club from all enemies, and to promote the general well-being. At first, its dues were set very low. The Club had a standing Army, and the Members had a right to do pretty much whatever they wanted, as long as it did not hurt anyone else.
In its early years, the Members decided that comprehensive education was an important thing to do, so education for all was instituted. Some of the dues collected by the club were used to pay for schools and teachers throughout the entire membership. Later on, some of the Members saw that as people in the Club got older, some of them were unable to care for themselves financially and medically. Most of the time the older Members were being taken care of by their families and Churches, but some of the Members thought that since the Club did such a better job at education than the Churches had done, then the Club should take over the care and feeding of their older Members.
About this same time, some in the Club complained that the dues collected for the general welfare were being levied unfairly. Some members, they argued, were too poor to pay the same dues as the richer members. So the Club decided to not collect dues from the poorest members. Then, they decided to collect more dues from the richer members than they collected from the middle class members, because the richer members were, well, richer. Later, it was decided that the poorer members were staying poor through no fault of their own. The Club began collecting dues from other members and rebating or refunding those dues to the poorer members, even though the poorer members had not paid any dues at all. This was called, among other things, the Poor Person's Dues Credit. Some of these credits and subsidies were totally outrageous, but passed because some Club members did not vote, and those who voted were not educated about the issues, or more accurately, were motivated more by self-interest than the general welfare.
As time went on, the Club took on more and more responsibility for the happiness and welfare of the members. The Club members who made their living on the farm were starting to get poorer, so the Club gave them Farm Dues Subsidies. The children throughout the entire Club were not all graduating from Club schools with the same grades, so the Club created a Department of Education. Additional dues were collected from all of the Club members to pay more to teachers and build more modern schools. The new Department needed a national Secretary, and he became good friends with the teacher's unions. Dues were given to Universities for studies of all manner of social sciences, and Grants were given for experiments in every conceivable realm of society.
Unfortunately, as the Clubs expenses grew, they began to run a deficit. Some said they should raise the Dues on the rich, others said they should collect more Dues from every member. Still more members said they were paying too much in Dues, and could not afford an increase. While the debate on Dues went on, the deficit grew.
In the year 2000, a very conservative Club President was elected. He had campaigned on less Club involvement in people's personal lives and lower dues. But the very next year, tragedy struck. An evil land sent bad people to hurt the Club, and 3000 members died. The Club President decided to spend more on defense, and he waged war on the evil land. But he also created another Club Department, with a high-level Secretary and lots of bureaucrats to run it. He called it the Department of Club Security. But the duties given to the Secretary of Club Security were already being done by the Club Intelligence Agency and the Firm Bureau of Investigation. But the President said the new Department was necessary, so that the members would all feel secure.
Eight years later, a famine hit the land. Lots of people lost their jobs. Many grown children had to move back in with their parents. Many banks went out of business, because there was not enough money. Some major manufacturing companies, like Chrysler and GM, were on the verge of going bankrupt. Since so many of the Club members worked in the banks and in Chrysler and GM, the new President decided to bail out the banks and buy Chrysler and GM with money collected from the members in dues. But there was still not enough money. So the new President decided he would print some new money, and he hoped that with al the new money being given to the Members, the Club would survive the famine.
As things started to get better, the new President made a promise to the club members. He promised to find ways to reduce the deficit. He appointed a bi-partisan commission to study the issue, and to come up with ways to grow the economy and reduce the deficit.
Some in the commission said the Club should raise dues. Others said no, that would kill jobs; the way to do it would be to stop spending Club money on unnecessary things. When they were asked what unnecessary things they would de-fund, the commissioners did not know. They hemmed and hawed, and scratched their chins, and said the Club could stop spending so much on older people. Some of the older people were rich, they said, and did not need subsidies from the Club. Those older people should not be eligible for subsidies at age 65, they said; the new eligibility age should be 67. Oh, but the Club had already promised to take care of the older members, so the changes should not take effect until 15 years from now.
Many Club members got together and called themselves the HEAR party, as in Had Enough AlReady. The HEAR party wanted to stop printing money. They also were against raising dues. They wanted the Club to find cheaters who owed dues but did not pay. They wanted the Club to find people who received subsidies but were not eligible--they said the subsidies should continue to be paid to eligible Club members, but some were receiving subsidies fraudulently. This should stop, they said. The ideas of the HEAR party were good, but they did not go far enough.
Interestingly, nobody in the Club suggested what really needed to be done. They did not suggest real reduction in the size of government. Examples would be to dismantle the Department of Club Security, since its work duplicates that of the CIA and FBI. No, many Club members say; you just want us to be less secure. But I remember when we felt secure without a government department and a cabinet-level secretary.
There are other cabinet level departments that should be dissolved. Education, Commerce, and Labor have all outlived their usefulness. We have laws in place that mandate education, fair business practices, and fair pay and benefits; there is no longer any need for the government to promote these ideas.
The government should not tell us what kind of light bulbs we should use in our homes. The government should not tell us how much money a teenager should get on his first job. The government should not tell us how to package things we sell, or how to consume the things we buy. Citizens should be free to make their own choices about these things.
The best way to promote the general welfare, I think, would be to scrap all government agencies, departments, bureaus and contractors hired or created in the last hundred years. We should stop paying tax monies to NGO's, community organizers, unions and farmers. Once all the madness has stopped, then we could decide anew which entities were absolutely necessary and would die without government help. We could set new priorities for the 21st century, and move forward, unencumbered by outdated obligations.
It might be a whole new world. While some groups may try to exert influence for their own self interest, the whole population may just wake up and become engaged in the process. If everyone was involved, then the country's interest might outweigh the interests of a select few. Or it might just descend into chaos. We are too much used to the status quo to make any appreciable change.
That's just sad.
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Outrageous Taxpayer Subsidies
Did you know that American taxpayers subsidize cotton farmers? Did you know that American taxpayers subsidize cotton farmers in Brazil? The next time one of your liberal friends asks "What programs would you cut from the federal budget?" as if ending any program was tantamount to taking food out of children's mouths, tell them you would cut the $150M a year we are sending to Brazilian cotton farmers.
American farm subsidies began during the Great Depression. Basically, it was to make sure that farm families did not go bankrupt, and disrupt the US food supply. But when the war came, and many farming families sold their farms to big corporations and farming conglomerates, the farm subsidies did not die. During the post-war boom, when the American economy was growing by leaps and bounds, the farm subsidies did not die. Nor did the subsidies die when the World Trade Organization (WTO) and its member countries voted to limit the subsidies paid by governments to their farmers.
Let me reiterate that last point. The WTO, of which the United States is a member, entered into a treaty, a multi-national agreement, to curtail most farm subsidies. Despite the agreement, despite the Full Faith and Credit of the US Government, Congress still voted to give farm subsidies to US farmers. This made other countries, who were abiding by the treaty, angry. Brazil cotton farmers were really mad. The US farm subsidies were making their cotton sell at a disadvantage on the world market.
So they sued. Brazilian cotton farmers and their Interior Secretary took the US to court, and won. The international court of the WTO found that America had violated their agreement to limit farm subsidies. The US appealed, and lost. We appealed again, and lost again. Then we did something very American.
We sent a delegation to Brazil to negotiate with the Brazilian cotton farmers. Our delegates explained how hard it is to kill a program once it is enacted by Congress. They said it might take years to stop the subsidies altogether. This was not a good negotiating position. The Brazilians didn't care about how hard it is for Congress to stop paying farmers. They just knew we were violating an agreement we had entered into with other cotton-producing countries.
So the US delegation offered to pay Brazilian cotton farmers a fee, a penalty of sorts, to appease them. Since the US Congress will not take up the Farm Bill until 2012, we offered to pay $150M a year to Brazil to help level the playing field until we could take up the issue and make changes. The agreement was struck in April of this year. Had you heard about it before now? Neither had I, until I heard a report on National Public Radio today. And although the NPR report did mention that the US taxpayer was now subsidizing cotton farmers in Brazil, it was not reported with any outrage or urgency. It was almost noted in passing.
Now, to those of you who might say that $150M is a drop in the bucket when compared with the total US Government annual budget, you are right. Compared to our trillion dollar debt, this is small time. But exactly where do you draw the line?
If my family signed up for every convenience advertised on television and radio, and didn't worry about the cost because it was always "just pennies a day", there would come a time when those pennies added up to such a sum that we could no longer pay the mortgage or the light bill. And that is exactly what our government has done with this settlement agreement with Brazilian cotton farmers. Instead of making the hard choices to stop subsidizing huge farming conglomerates at home, and abiding by an agreement made with the WTO, we opted instead for a convenient fee paid to a foreign government.
How many of the other foreign aid line items in our federal budget are there for the very same reason? It is easier to pay a few million a month to keep them at bay than it is to reduce our bigger contributions to big political contributors. In other words, Big Farm Firms, like Big Pharma, or Big Oil, pay big bucks to re-elect their favorite Congressman every year. And that Congressman is afraid that if he stands up to his big contributors, then he might lose his job.
My heart bleeds.
American farm subsidies began during the Great Depression. Basically, it was to make sure that farm families did not go bankrupt, and disrupt the US food supply. But when the war came, and many farming families sold their farms to big corporations and farming conglomerates, the farm subsidies did not die. During the post-war boom, when the American economy was growing by leaps and bounds, the farm subsidies did not die. Nor did the subsidies die when the World Trade Organization (WTO) and its member countries voted to limit the subsidies paid by governments to their farmers.
Let me reiterate that last point. The WTO, of which the United States is a member, entered into a treaty, a multi-national agreement, to curtail most farm subsidies. Despite the agreement, despite the Full Faith and Credit of the US Government, Congress still voted to give farm subsidies to US farmers. This made other countries, who were abiding by the treaty, angry. Brazil cotton farmers were really mad. The US farm subsidies were making their cotton sell at a disadvantage on the world market.
So they sued. Brazilian cotton farmers and their Interior Secretary took the US to court, and won. The international court of the WTO found that America had violated their agreement to limit farm subsidies. The US appealed, and lost. We appealed again, and lost again. Then we did something very American.
We sent a delegation to Brazil to negotiate with the Brazilian cotton farmers. Our delegates explained how hard it is to kill a program once it is enacted by Congress. They said it might take years to stop the subsidies altogether. This was not a good negotiating position. The Brazilians didn't care about how hard it is for Congress to stop paying farmers. They just knew we were violating an agreement we had entered into with other cotton-producing countries.
So the US delegation offered to pay Brazilian cotton farmers a fee, a penalty of sorts, to appease them. Since the US Congress will not take up the Farm Bill until 2012, we offered to pay $150M a year to Brazil to help level the playing field until we could take up the issue and make changes. The agreement was struck in April of this year. Had you heard about it before now? Neither had I, until I heard a report on National Public Radio today. And although the NPR report did mention that the US taxpayer was now subsidizing cotton farmers in Brazil, it was not reported with any outrage or urgency. It was almost noted in passing.
Now, to those of you who might say that $150M is a drop in the bucket when compared with the total US Government annual budget, you are right. Compared to our trillion dollar debt, this is small time. But exactly where do you draw the line?
If my family signed up for every convenience advertised on television and radio, and didn't worry about the cost because it was always "just pennies a day", there would come a time when those pennies added up to such a sum that we could no longer pay the mortgage or the light bill. And that is exactly what our government has done with this settlement agreement with Brazilian cotton farmers. Instead of making the hard choices to stop subsidizing huge farming conglomerates at home, and abiding by an agreement made with the WTO, we opted instead for a convenient fee paid to a foreign government.
How many of the other foreign aid line items in our federal budget are there for the very same reason? It is easier to pay a few million a month to keep them at bay than it is to reduce our bigger contributions to big political contributors. In other words, Big Farm Firms, like Big Pharma, or Big Oil, pay big bucks to re-elect their favorite Congressman every year. And that Congressman is afraid that if he stands up to his big contributors, then he might lose his job.
My heart bleeds.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)