The farm bill: So much so wrong
How broken Washington truly is came to a head Thursday when the House rejected the five-year, multibillion-dollar farm bill. And no, we're not talking about the politics of it all. Neither are we bemoaning the failure of an overall lousy piece of legislation. We're talking about our representatives' fundamental failure to discern what's right versus what's stupid.
The reauthorization measure failed, supposedly, over concerns that not only were cuts to the food stamp program too steep but a requirement that recipients either work or look for work was too onerous. Never mind that food stamps have become a growth industry in the Obama administration's entitlement economy, something it, and in a most bizarre fashion, touts as contributing to economic growth. And God forbid that anyone would have the temerity to ask those receiving public assistance to look for work.
Insanely, a really abhorrent measure — the latest price-fixing scheme for milk — was considered to be just creamy-dreamy to House members. But considering the United States is a net exporter of dairy products, why is government involved at all? Actually, that's a question that should be asked about every farm product.
The trouble is that Washington has perverted farm markets so thoroughly and for so long that virtually no one has any idea what a real farm marketplace is like. Government's interventionist farm policy artificially props up prices that promote overproduction that suppresses prices that then “require” more propping up.
It's daft. It's idiocy. It's Washington. And it has to stop.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.