Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Paul  Weyrich :: Townhall.com Columnist
Congressman Earl Blumenauer Promotes Farm Bill
by Paul Weyrich
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


I met Congressman Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) at a forum. Congressman Blumenauer and I agreed upon the need of balanced transportation to the point that we ended up turning the forum into a love fest. There was not, as one politician put it years ago, a dime's worth of difference between us.

Outside of transportation, I couldn't find much else with which he and I agreed - that is, until now. The Agriculture Reauthorization Bill of 2007 is up for consideration. The Congressman is sponsoring what he terms the Food & Farm Bill of Rights. There is little to argue with.

First, Americans have the right to a policy free of special interest giveaways. The annual Agriculture Bill long has been a Christmas tree of special interests which have been used as trading posts. The supporters of dairy subsidies scratch the backs of the supporters of wheat subsidies and vice-versa.

Second, American taxpayers have a right to a fiscally responsible policy. Does any reader of this Commentary disagree?

Third, Americans have a right to a policy which serves all farmers. You mean we don't have a policy to benefit Archer Daniels Midland?

Fourth, Americans have a right to a safe and healthful food supply. Calling China! How do we explain poisoned toothpaste?

Fifth, American children have a right to good nutrition. I don't believe that this is a governmental responsibility. I think parents and guardians ought to exercise this right.

Sixth, Americans have a right to local supplies of fresh food. Unfortunately, not all local areas have the ability to supply fresh food.

Seventh, Americans have a right to a policy which promotes energy independence. Each Administration since that of President Gerald R. Ford has claimed it had such a policy, yet each policy has been worse than its predecessor.

Eighth, Americans have the right to a policy which protects the environment.

Ninth, Americans have a right to preserve farmland from urban sprawl. I believe in the family farm and as our NEXT CONSERVATISM essays suggest, the Amish have demonstrated that a family farm can be economical. Often the sprawl which results from the sale of farmland results in nothing but traffic delays. On the other hand, we must be careful not to deprive owners of their right to dispose of private property.

Tenth, Americans have a right to a policy that fosters sustainable farming practices. I am not sure what the definition of sustainable farming practices is. If it is what I think it is perhaps we agree.

I agree with more than half of the Blumenauer Farm Bill. It could be more, depending upon definitions. That means we should form a left-right coalition when we approach the current Agriculture Reauthorization Bill. For example, should we use the funds, maybe one billion dollars, to teach school kids to like vegetables? We may as well throw away the money. At the same time high schools all over the nation are discontinuing gyms and athletic programs. Why not take that one billion and distribute it to schools to continue gyms and athletic programs?

In any case, clearly we can agree with Congressman Blumenauer as to many of these items. We ought to refashion the Agriculture Reauthorization Bill. The Congressman and I don't agree on many things but where we do we ought to cooperate. Many conservatives do not desire to work with Democrats unless they agree all of the time.

In our case, we are willing to work with anyone unless by doing so we compromise national security. Working on the Agriculture Bill would hardly do that.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Paul M. Weyrich is the late Chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Research and Education Foundation.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Paul Weyrich's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.

Rights
I am not sure where all these rights came from nor am I sure what the congressman thinks is fiscally responsible.

Why not just say we repeal all existing farm givaways. Why do farmers need a policy? If they cannot make a living farming try something else. Collecting public welfare for sitting on land is not supposed to be the American way.

In my eyes, this is garbage.

No Farm Bill at all, please
I am a farmer - amongst other pursuits. We would be best off it the government got completely out of the farm business in terms of subsidies. The only concern of the USDA should be to assure the safety and purity of the food marketed in this country. That should be in the form of standards, not procedures which must be followed.

I could write a book on this but I have to get the chores done and bale straw today. I don't have time to say more than this: no politician, Republican or Democrat, has come up with a decent farm bill since the 20's. If there is any push in the USDA today it should be to make sure foriegn countries must follow the same standards as the U.S. if they are to ship their products here. Consumers should understand that they have no right to anything they are not willing to assume the responsibility to assist in providing or at least understanding. In other words, you don't have the right to buy perfect vegetables unless you can understand what that means and what to look for. Your rights become meaningless when U.S. farmers have the best standards in the world for clean, safe vegetable production and the rest of the world can ship in any dreck they want to because the USDA has no standards for foriegn vegetables. This is about to be compounded. If the current administration has its way, the country of origin will not need to appear on food products shipped into this country. If you think the Chinese toothpaste was bad, you haven't seen anything yet. What consumers need to understand is that the USDA isn't just about destroying farmers (something at which it excells), it is supposed to assure a safe food supply to the entire population. They have left the consumer exposed while attemtping to destroy the American farmer.

Gotta go. If any of you have free time, I could use a hand in the straw stack!

Bogus "rights" = obligations
I am always suspicious of some proposal that calls itself a "[blank] Bill of Rights"

The traditional American concept of rights imposes limits on government. Rights are areas reserved for our personal discretion and enjoyment, in which government is forbidden to encroach. The 1st 10 Amendments to the Constitution, and arguably the 13th, are of this sort.

The leftist socialist "liberal" concept of 'rights' are obligations of one group to give something to another group, with government given the affirmative authority to confiscate from the 1st party to give stuff to the 2nd party. I'm seeing too much of the 2nd kind of 'rights' & not enough of the 1st, in the present proposal.

# 1, #2, & #3 I certainly agree with in principle. However, the best way to serve all farmers, keep from pandering to special interests, & have a fiscally responsible policy is to quit passing farm bills and abolish all subsidies and price support programs. Is that what's being proposed? I doubt it.

The ethanol scam, e.g., benefits a select group of farmers at the expense of everyone else, incl. other farmers who don't happen to grow corn.

Furthermore, 'fiscally responsible' has become leftie codespeak for 'jack up taxes.'

#4 I am suspicious of "a right to a safe and healthful food supply." Who is obligated to supply it? If this just means we will enforce laws against tainted & contaminated food, even cheap Chinese imports, I' OK with it, provided that is made more explicit.

#5 "Fifth, American children have a right to good nutrition. I don't believe that this is a governmental responsibility. I think parents and guardians ought to exercise this right." Amen, this is not a government repsonsibility; they're trying to raise welfare and food stamps to the status of a "right."

#6 Again, Blumenauer gets it right; how can a "right" of fresh local food be "garanteed" in urban areas, deserts, and so forth? Again somebody will have to be confiscated from to subsidize this pipe dream.

# 7 AAAugh! "Energy independence," absent local oil exploration and coal mining, has basically become leftie codespeak for "ration everyone's energy usage."

# 8 "policy that protects the environment?!" Thought we HAD wide swweping 'policies to protect the environment' that in their application are used as weapons to destroy private property, free enterprise, and human freedom. How would such a statement be construed by regulatory agencies and courts, that's the key question. Don't give them broad, vague mandates of this kind.

# 9 "Urban sprawl" is nothing more than 'growth' the ruling elites don't like or approve of, which is usually people seeking to escape those elites' high taxes, stupid intrusive paternalistic ordinances, corruption, and failures to provide basic services. Stopping "sprawl" and preserving farmland usually means restricting people from living where they want, & farmers from getting the best value for their land (i.e. by selling for residential development rather than continuing to farm in the face of low crop prices & high costs). The obsession with 'sprawl' is condescending and self-serving in the extreme. Don't buy into it.

# 10 "Tenth, Americans have a right to a policy that fosters sustainable farming practices. I am not sure what the definition of sustainable farming practices is. "
"Sustainable" is more leftie codespeak, basically the green-commie seal of approval. While there are some traditional practices that conserve soil, "sustainable" usually means pretty much whatever the leftists want it to mean in any situation. The radical vegetarians, e.g., might say any husbandry of livestock for meat whatsoever is by definition not 'sustainable.'


On Rights...
Yup, written by a Democrat, the same people who say that you have a right to affordable healthcare and a quality education... and if you don't have those SOMEONE HAS DONE WRONG BY YOU!

Rights are matters of personal conduct. Innocent people have the right to have no one kill them, and government enforces this. People have the right to maintain their own property, and government enforces this too by preventing others from taking it.

Rights to healthcare, education, etceteras are no longer "individual rights," but rather "social rights." Namely, in order to violate said rights no one has to do anything. Your home could be smashed tomorrow by a meteor, and suddenly your right to housing is being violated. By who? Everyone in society, claim the Democrats. Your health may be abysmal, and suddenly your right to healthcare is being violated... even if there are no doctors left. Conservatives believe in the protection of the individual. Liberals believe in the advancement of the individual at the expense of other individuals, and the advancement of the collective.

Government is supposed to prevent one party from harming another. It isn't supposed to mandate that one person be responsible for the welfare of another. People are responsible for themselves, and their own actions. It's what Conservatives call "personal responsibility," rather than "social responsibility."

The only obligation included in a
legitimate right is non-interference. If more than non-interference is required, it isn't a right.

Farm Bill
Wyerich's fascination with the farm bill will
haunt us all.
I am not sure how much of the farm subsidies you are in favor of but the mad rush to "grow" ethanol from corn has already increased the price of almost every food commodity. First dairy costs and prices are significantly higher and so it goes right up the food "chain" .
The most disgusting thing about it all is the fact that the yield in ethanol requireds an almost equal utilization of fossil fuel.
We therefore continue to waste fossil fuels and pay more ! The bottom line for all of this is, the low citizens are going to pay more for food and LESS for other goods and services.
I'll let you guess where that leads!

Paul in Dallas ,Oregon

KM7
But isn't this just what people want?

Farm subsidies are a result of low prices. Prices in some cases below the cost of production. Now that milk has increased in price, I no longer receive any direct government payments. The feds no longer buy surplus cheese, butter, and powder, the market price is higher than their support price.

Isn't this what people want? No government expense? We in the dairy industry aren't receiving money from the feds right now, we are getting it directly from you...as it should be.

And yet, people complain.




Mr. Right
I have to polish this chair for 6 more hours or I would be there with bells on :)!

Hustler
Don't curse farmers with your moauth full :)!

Sorry!
mouth full :)!

Not Working!
I live in a rural area that depends on farming. Though I do not farm, I teach. Year after year, I watch my classes shrink as farms fail and the other businesses fail along with them. All over my state schools are shutting their doors for lack of students.

It may well be argued that technology has something to do with this. However, government policy has insulated farmers so thoroughly that change in the agriculture industry has been very slow to come.

I do find it particularly amusing to hear the same people who worry about the plight of the farmer complain about high food prices. My response is that it's about time. Perhaps we can even solve the so-called "obesity epidemic" at the same time.

What we can afford
It would seem that today thing are divided by rich and poor, more than they have ever been, because more people are working hard and getting poor, while the "rich"(oil companies and Wall Street) are staying that way, keeping rich. Today we see life as more of a struggle than it's ever been, with gangs raising people's children and violence becoming a way of life, for some. The economy has a way of doing that, especially in cities, where there isn't really an escape. Food riots in other countries will hit here soon and people wonder where these "cults" come from. It's the 21st century, where things are supposed to be better (only if you can afford it). What we can't afford is the screwing of America, what we can afford isn't very much, today
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.