USD College Republicans

Shameless self promotion

I've got an article in the Volante today discussing farm subsidies.
-
-
"The farm subsidy system has failed. It's now an antiquated vehicle through which incomes are redistributed and the wealthy are coddled. Subsidies cost taxpayers $25 billon each year, with an extra $12 billion in the artificially high food prices they create.

This wasn't always the case. Subsidies once conjured images of families struggling to survive through harvest. That was 1935. Now it's trite rhetoric."
-
I hope that, upon the next draft of the Farm Bill, Congress will work to reform the subsidy system. Or better yet, get rid of it.
-
-Matt Hittle

Posted at 08:14AM Dec 05, 2007 by College Republicans in Subsidies  |  Comments[0]

Excellent!

Here's a great post by my friend and former boss Brendan, from FreedomWorks in DC:
-
http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/?p=1206
-
Check it out!
-
-Matt Hittle

Posted at 01:06PM Nov 29, 2007 by College Republicans in Subsidies  |  Comments[0]

Farm subsidies: Free money to undeserving farmers or safety net for family farms?

Here's something I wrote for FreedomWorks, a nonprofit, limited government-minded grassroots advocacy organization headquartered in DC.
I'm wary of printing this in South Dakota, but here goes................

-----------------------------------------------

Here in South Dakota, most folks don’t like government intervention in their lives. That is, unless we’re discussing farm subsidies. People out here go crazy over this free cash from Uncle Sam, and any assertion against it is booed.

In an article for RealClearPolitics, Robert Samuelson discusses the history of federal farm subsidies, and the massive money pit they have become.

----------------------
"In the 37 years since 1970, the federal government has spent $578 billion on farm subsidies. Samuelson says that, even though incredible amounts are spent on farming, its not doing much good:

Food would be produced without subsidies. Roughly 90 percent of commodity payments go to farmers raising grains (wheat, corn), soybeans, cotton and rice; these products represent about a fifth of farm cash receipts. Meanwhile, meat, vegetable and fruit producers get no direct subsidies. Does anyone truly think that, without subsidies, Iowa’s cornfields and Kansas’s wheat fields would go fallow?"
----------------------

When I bring up the issue of farm subsidies, most of my neighbors are flabbergasted that an Iowan living in South Dakota could be against them. Subsidies keep people afloat, they say. Well…that’s not exactly true, it seems. Samuelson explains the progression of the agriculture industry in relation to farm subsidies:

--------------------------
"Well, maybe farm subsidies “saved” the family farm? Not exactly. Farm subsidies date to the Great Depression. In 1932, there were 6.7 million farms, and the farm population was 25 percent of the nation’s total. By 2002, the number of farms had dwindled to 2.1 million, and the farm population was about 2 percent of the total. More mechanization, better seeds and cultivation practices have enabled fewer, bigger farms to produce more food."
--------------------------
Of course, in the end, the unnecessary government intervention ruins the party for everyone:

---------------------------
"Government has a legitimate role in agriculture to ensure food safety, oversee the environment, and promote research and development. But most of today’s farm programs are simply income transfers from consumers and taxpayers to farmers. Aside from their costs, these programs actually damage American interests. Global trade negotiations are stalled in part because the United States and other countries won’t end farm subsidies and protections. The irony is that, as the world’s largest food exporter, the United States would be better off if all subsidies vanished, though some American producers (sugar, cotton) might suffer."
-----------------------------

Posted at 11:08PM Nov 28, 2007 by College Republicans in Subsidies  |  Comments[0]