A blog dedicated to the rational discussion of politics and current events.
Monday, September 26, 2011
An Apple a Day, and The Rot of Government Subsidies
When Louie Gohmert, idiot at large and Republican Congressman from Texas takes to the floor of the House of Representatives to trash talk eating healthy, you have to start following the aroma of money, not food. I would bet, given the number of Republicans who are against the government promoting healthy eating patterns, that there are large campaign donations made to them by Big Ag, directly or indirectly, for continuing the subsidies noted in the article below.
In its efforts to curb the nation's obesity epidemic, the U.S. government seems to be taking inspiration from the infamous Twinkie diet, with more federal dollars going to subsidize the production of junk food than to growing fresh fruits and vegetables.
In a report released last week, the California Public Interest Research Group (CALPIRG) revealed that from 1995 to 2010, $16.9 billion in American tax dollars went to subsidize production of four common junk food additives: corn syrup, high fructose corn syrup, corn starch, and soy oils (often processed to create hydrogenated vegetable oils).
The report, called "Apples to Twinkies: Comparing Federal Subsidies of Fresh Produce and Junk Food," found that during the 15 year period studied, the federal government spent over $260 billion in agricultural subsidies. However, the vast majority of this went to commodity crops like soy beans and corn. As the production of additives like corn syrup was receiving billions in tax dollars, the study reveals that the only significant funding of fresh produce was for apples, which received a comparatively stingy $262 million in subsidies from 1995 to 2010.
So where are your tax dollars going? To offer a more personalized sense of the discrepancy, the report breaks down the figures. If taxpayers were given a direct cut of the agricultural subsidies to spend on groceries, we'd each receive $7.36 to spend on junk food each year and a mere $0.11 to purchase apples — the equivalent of 19 Twinkies and a few bites of a Red Delicious apple.
Hmmm … for the politician it’s a pretty easy question, will my supporters vote based on whether I subsidize a business versus those that regulate the products ?
With Ag subsidies, its pretty clear that John Kline stands with Big Ag . Considered that the House approved H.R. 2112 by a vote of 217-203 (Roll Call 459). The bill cuts $2.6 billion in discretionary programs for child nutrition, research, conservation, and rural development, compared with last year's levels. The administration expressed concern with the bill, stating that the funding level "will severely limit the FDA's ability to protect the public's health" and assure the safety of food and medical products. Interestingly, the legislation did include one proposal offered by a Democrat ... an amendment to prohibit the use of taxpayer subsidies to the Brazilian Cotton Institute, a cost savings of $147 million a year, and it passed the House of Representatives with bipartisan support. … although only 95 Republicans voted for it … while 141 Republicans embraced Big Agri-business including Minnesotans Mr. Kline, Erik Paulsen (R-MN-03) and Raymond Cravaack (R-MN-08). (Note : the bill is awaiting Senate action.)
Did you know which state was number 1 in subsidies ... the answer ... TEXAS. Louie Gohmart's district received : •$41.2 million in subsidies 1995-2010. -- $27.0 million in disaster subsidies. -- $8.15 million in commodity subsidies. -- $6.10 million in conservation subsidies.
It's all political ... apples producers don't carry any weight ... Apple Market Loss Assistance Program has not been funded in over six years .... while other commodities (wheat, cotton, corn, soybeans and rice) are protected. Although the USDA does offer a commodity insurance program.
BTW : I built my home on an old apple orchard and the first thing that I learned was that Texas apples were imported into Minnesota to be sold at Minnesota apple stands.
So, Mac........aren't politicians like Kline finding themselves at odds with their Tea Party constituents who oppose these subsidies to big Ag?
The last thing we should be cutting is programs for child nutrition, research, rural development etc. for any reason, but least of all for making more money for big business agriculture.
And looking at the occurrences of health recalls of meat and veg, we clearly need MORE, not less, food safety regulation enforcement.
Actually, John Kline has gotten some heat from the TEA Party … for example, he held a TEA-TownParty in Chanhassen on April 26 … the complaint : his vote (to compromise with the Democrats for far less than the $100B in cuts we were promised, NO defunding of NPR, Planned Parenthood or the $105B of Appropriations within Obamacare) and the upcoming vote (to consider raising the Debt Ceiling) -- We MUST LET CONGRESSMAN KLINE KNOW WHERE WE STAND, what we think of his past votes and use this opportunity to communicate HOW WE EXPECT HIM TO VOTE in the future!!! The outcome : Kline listened, and I believe he agreed with much of what we said; he even suggested that he shared our frustration (not sure about that). But we also got the political two-step: "it's the law" or "it'll take too long" or "the senate/president will never approve it" or some other reason (some say excuse - I'll say reason) why we can only get half of what we want and it will take twice as long we want. "That's politics, that's the "system", that's our bureaucracy." I guess that's what they call "making sausage".
My gut tells me that they recognize that Kline can not be beat, so he is what he is.
The problem is that for independents (like me), the DFL has failed to offer (and finance) a competitive challenger. Considering that Kline is center-stage on jobs and education, one would think that he would be a target … but heck, he spent the 2010 campaign season outside the district campaigning for other Republicans.
Lastly, don't forget that Mr. Kline's family farm has benefited from subsidies. The Second District may have plenty of suburban voters but there is a lot of farms ... and although those subsidies benefit large Agri-businesses ... the small farmer gets a share ... so I suppose as long everybody gets a piece of the pie, they are happy ... but they don't notice that somebody is getting a much larger piece.
In its efforts to curb the nation's obesity epidemic, the U.S. government seems to be taking inspiration from the infamous Twinkie diet, with more federal dollars going to subsidize the production of junk food than to growing fresh fruits and vegetables.
Hmmm … for the politician it’s a pretty easy question, will my supporters vote based on whether I subsidize a business versus those that regulate the products ?
ReplyDeleteWith Ag subsidies, its pretty clear that John Kline stands with Big Ag . Considered that the House approved H.R. 2112 by a vote of 217-203 (Roll Call 459). The bill cuts $2.6 billion in discretionary programs for child nutrition, research, conservation, and rural development, compared with last year's levels. The administration expressed concern with the bill, stating that the funding level "will severely limit the FDA's ability to protect the public's health" and assure the safety of food and medical products.
Interestingly, the legislation did include one proposal offered by a Democrat ... an amendment to prohibit the use of taxpayer subsidies to the Brazilian Cotton Institute, a cost savings of $147 million a year, and it passed the House of Representatives with bipartisan support. … although only 95 Republicans voted for it … while 141 Republicans embraced Big Agri-business including Minnesotans Mr. Kline, Erik Paulsen (R-MN-03) and Raymond Cravaack (R-MN-08).
(Note : the bill is awaiting Senate action.)
Did you know which state was number 1 in subsidies ... the answer ... TEXAS.
Louie Gohmart's district received :
•$41.2 million in subsidies 1995-2010.
-- $27.0 million in disaster subsidies.
-- $8.15 million in commodity subsidies.
-- $6.10 million in conservation subsidies.
It's all political ... apples producers don't carry any weight ... Apple Market Loss Assistance Program has not been funded in over six years .... while other commodities (wheat, cotton, corn, soybeans and rice) are protected. Although the USDA does offer a commodity insurance program.
BTW : I built my home on an old apple orchard and the first thing that I learned was that Texas apples were imported into Minnesota to be sold at Minnesota apple stands.
So, Mac........aren't politicians like Kline finding themselves at odds with their Tea Party constituents who oppose these subsidies to big Ag?
ReplyDeleteThe last thing we should be cutting is programs for child nutrition, research, rural development etc. for any reason, but least of all for making more money for big business agriculture.
And looking at the occurrences of health recalls of meat and veg, we clearly need MORE, not less, food safety regulation enforcement.
Actually, John Kline has gotten some heat from the TEA Party … for example, he held a TEA-TownParty in Chanhassen on April 26 … the complaint : his vote (to compromise with the Democrats for far less than the $100B in cuts we were promised, NO defunding of NPR, Planned Parenthood or the $105B of Appropriations within Obamacare) and the upcoming vote (to consider raising the Debt Ceiling) -- We MUST LET CONGRESSMAN KLINE KNOW WHERE WE STAND, what we think of his past votes and use this opportunity to communicate HOW WE EXPECT HIM TO VOTE in the future!!!
ReplyDeleteThe outcome : Kline listened, and I believe he agreed with much of what we said; he even suggested that he shared our frustration (not sure about that). But we also got the political two-step: "it's the law" or "it'll take too long" or "the senate/president will never approve it" or some other reason (some say excuse - I'll say reason) why we can only get half of what we want and it will take twice as long we want. "That's politics, that's the "system", that's our bureaucracy." I guess that's what they call "making sausage".
My gut tells me that they recognize that Kline can not be beat, so he is what he is.
The problem is that for independents (like me), the DFL has failed to offer (and finance) a competitive challenger. Considering that Kline is center-stage on jobs and education, one would think that he would be a target … but heck, he spent the 2010 campaign season outside the district campaigning for other Republicans.
Lastly, don't forget that Mr. Kline's family farm has benefited from subsidies.
The Second District may have plenty of suburban voters but there is a lot of farms ... and although those subsidies benefit large Agri-businesses ... the small farmer gets a share ... so I suppose as long everybody gets a piece of the pie, they are happy ... but they don't notice that somebody is getting a much larger piece.