Ordinarily I do not post items with which I disagree without explaining my disagreement. However, I do make exceptions. Sometimes the goal is simply to understand the other side’s position. In this case, the subject is the farm bill Congress passed the middle of this month.
Congress enacted a massive $290 billion farm bill for a second time on Wednesday after a clerical error in the first bill threatened delivery of U.S. food aid abroad.
The Senate voted 80-14 to override President Bush’s veto of the legislation, more than the two-thirds majority necessary to enact it. Bush vetoed the bill for a second time earlier Wednesday, and the House voted 317-109 to override it a few hours later. (from here)
Obviously, President Bush was unhappy with the legislation. However, Congress wanted this bill and went to great pains to pass it. What follows is a comment from here defending Congress’ override of Bush’s veto.
“Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer said USDA’s announcement for signup beginning today in the 2008 Direct and Counter-cyclical Payment Program (DCP) helps deliver certainty for the crop year and the option of a timely advance payment. Contracts are available today at USDA Service Centers and signup will continue until September 30, 2008.” So basically, farmers can depend on money coming in which is good because if they can’t, it becomes too expensive to run the farms. Little farmers around here can tell you that (see here).
“Since 2002, USDA has issued approximately $40 billion in DCP payments to America’s agricultural producers.” Also good because we want to encourage farming in our own country. We don’t want to have to import all our food (too expensive and lack of regulation) and if a farm stays a farm, then it’s not a parking lot or another subdivision (i.e. Bristow).
“Mr. Bush has said he wants to sharply limit government subsidies to farmers at a time of near-record commodity prices and soaring global demand for grain.” BUT if farmers can’t get the money they need as they did in the past, they will cut production which will increase food prices even more. We who already have to endure increases because of gas would feel the crunch more than Mr. Bush and his rich friends who don’t have to worry about the cost of mayo. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/15/washington/15cnd-farm.html?ref=business
“The bill continues the United States’ long history of agricultural subsidy as well as pursuing areas such as energy, conservation, nutrition, and rural development.[1] Some specific initiatives in the bill include increases in Food Stamp benefits, increased support for the production of cellulosic ethanol, and money for the research of pests, diseases and other agricultural problems.” Good for the poor and for the planet as far as I can see. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food%2C_Conservation%2C_and_Energy_Act_of_2008
The fact that this bill has passed and then overrided Bush’s veto means there is SOMETHING good about it, even if it’s not “all good.” Sure, it’s controversial, as is every bill, but I think at a time of fiscal instability, impending recession, the housing market crash, the fuel crisis, etc. etc. etc. it’s not wise to mess with the farmers. If Congress wants to re-think the bill later when things are better, I’m sure that’s an option. Now is NOT the time IMHO. (This was a comment provided by kgotthardt from here)
The time to end subsidies passed decades ago. Socialism enables a few for a pittance and robs many for much.
Federal, or better – State, insurance for farming and fishery makes since. Underwriting the insurance when many bad years follow one another provides a safety net that isn’t socialism. The farmer and fisherman can pay insurance premiums to cover himself – like others pay into insurance in case they are disabled.
There is no excuse for continuing bad economic policies.
Also, check out how much agri-businesses are paid out of sympathy for Ma and Pa Kettle Farmer.
“Ma and Pa Kettle Farmer”
That’s a bit harsh, isn’t it, in referring to the people who keep us fed?
As far as I know, both James and kgotthardt are highly intelligent and knowledgeable. They are both good people. They are also human. When we disagree, we all have to work hard to keep our emotions and our tongue in check. When we don’t, we have a tendency to talk past each other.
Consider. Did James intend to make fun of farmers? I think not. I think James sees a different aspect of the farm bill than kgotthardt. James sees the farm bill as socialist and therefore quite dangerous to individual freedom. On the other hand, kgotthardt sees the legislation as helpful to small, family farmers. She worries about their impoverishment. James sees small, family farmers being used by agri-businesses (corporations) as cover for confiscating billions in taxpayer funds. Therefore, he derivesively attacked the agri-business sympathy ploy with the expression “Ma and Pa Kettle Farmer.” Naturally, since kgotthardt has taken up the cause of the small, family farmer, she found this derision personally offensive.
Just as the sarcasm was unnecessary, taking personal offense was equally pointless. What is important is that there is area where James and kgotthardt can most likely achieve a common understanding: “Federal, or better – State, insurance for farming and fishery makes sense.”
To overcome the propensity of our leaders to give our hard earned dollars over to greedy special interests, we need to realize that we usually agree more than we disagree. Otherwise, the dialogue abruptly ends, we harden our positions, and the special interests win.
How do we keep our emotions in check? We can look for the common ground. We begin by assuming that the intentions of others are at least as good if not better than our own.
“she found this derision personally offensive.”
I didn’t find it personally offensive in terms of ME. I just don’t think we should make fun of farmers. I mean, if James had called me (personally) a Socialist (which I have been called before) it probably wouldn’t have struck a nerve as much as calling farmers “Ma and Pa Kettle.” I guess I get a short fuse when I feel like people are being picked on.
Anyway, you are right that we do usually have more in common than not and pejorative terms tend to bring out the not-so-great in all of us.
In any event, I like James’ idea about insurance, but would states ever pay for anything like that? COULD they? If they can, why haven’t they been asked to?
“We begin by assuming that the intentions of others are at least as good if not better than our own.”
You should do a whole posting on just this idea, Tom. This concept involves trust of bloggers, politicians, community leaders and activists. Do we really have a reason to trust?
You may remember when you quoted this statement: “we have no choice except to assume the average adult is rational” (from here).
There are some seemingly odd things that we do for ourselves as much as we do them for others. One is to be each other’s servant. One thing we can do for each other is to look for and expect the best from each other. A Methodist minister put it to my wife this way (and she passed it on to me). “To best foster humility within yourself, think of others as being better than yourself.”
Because each of us is inherently at the very center of our life, humility of any kind is actually rather difficult to achieve. So what we must keep foremost in our thoughts is our inability to judge another. We have personal knowledge of our trials; we know little of the trials of others.
Consider that the thing that makes us better — truly humble — is to submit our will to God’s. Before we speak and act, do we contemplate what He wants from us? Because each of us faces and has faced a unique set of trials, we can only guess whether another person truly is better than our self. Only God truly knows the effort that each of us has made and is making to submit to His will. Only He is capable of such a judgment. So why not begin by assuming that the intentions of others are at least as good if not better than our own?
Perhap this is a naive notion, but without a moral people, our form of government is in any event doomed. An evil People will bring the punishment they deserve upon themselves.
Tom, then you are a better person than I or you have had seriously different experiences than I.
I have a lot of government baggage, having been maimed in government systems as a citizen, particularly the student loan/private system and some in health care. Other things I just can’t get into here or anywhere else, but they are still somewhat open wounds that have yet to be healed. I keep hoping for scabs that won’t fall off too soon. So I hold a certain rage for the “little guy,” people who get beaten up in systems and elsewhere in life because I am one of them.
I have lost faith in good intentions because I went into these places and situations expecting people to have good intentions and they didn’t. I got hurt very badly on serious levels, and until these issues are resolved one way or another, I don’t know how I can get past that anger I feel whenever someone gets bashed for little reason other than no one has looked at other possible solutions or they have ignored the problem all together. I now go into situations assuming people have neutral intentions and I wait for them to prove those intentions one way or another.
When my issues are resolved to the point where they no longer affect my life, I can walk away from them. But for now, they impact my every day. I don’t know if you can understand that or not, but it’s my reality and has been for years now. I keep these issues away from my children, but they do affect my family financially and me emotionally. I pray and hope these issues will resolve themselves some time so I can move on.
My desire is to serve so I can prevent others from going through similar situations. More than anything, I understand struggle at various levels, and I don’t think any amount of suffering should go wasted…like Job. And there are certainly people who have suffered far more than I have in life. I have a great family. I have the ability to enjoy things. Because of these, I have never given up hope or my capacity to laugh. But I do not trust as easily as I once did. At some level, I’ve abandoned that naiveté you refer to. Some people ARE out to hurt others.
As you pointed out, I have to assume people are logical until they prove otherwise. Unfortunately, I’ve met my share of illogical people who CHOOSE to be illogical. I don’t know why they do this when they have the intelligence and emotional capacity NOT to do this. I can’t read their minds or hearts, but I know their actions make me angry. I want to use my anger to prevent more serious injury. These are my motivations, and these are my reasons for having a short fuse when it comes to rights of human beings, rights that get trodden upon all the time.
We all have the right to live our lives in peace, to work to sustain our families, and to be free from harassment, hatred, and violence. I believe this and will do whatever I can to sustain it.
I hope you understand. It’s not a matter of forgiving. It’s a matter of daily coping, fighting systems that are broken down, systems that are hurting people in the process.
Sorry I got so windy! I posted it on my blog as well.
Pingback: THE RIGHT ATTITUDE « Citizen Tom
CT: Nice job on reading correctly and interpreting spot on what I meant. Hooah.
I’m second generation off the farm like most Southerners. I know how my Granddad lived and all of his kin. I didn’t mean any offense at family farmer’s – I do hope to point out how few family farmers actually get anything in this bill – and less in general from socialism.
The exigencies of risky farming, fishing – and hey, forrestry, could be covered by insurance. Not socialism.
James, thanks for explaining where you were coming from. I didn’t “get it.” Sorry.
So…why doesn’t the state use insurance as you propose? Too expensive? What is it?
KG: I don’t know why state underwritten insurance hasn’t been tries instead of interfering with the market.
I know the story of what happened in the 30s when for 2 years my grandfather made less on his crop than it cost him. He had nothing left except his land, tools and mule.
He got $50.00 on a handshake from the bank. No paper. Bought his seed, cooking oil and stuff he couldn’t make himself. Went back to the farm and didn’t go into town (county seat about 4 miles away) for a stick of gum – for anything – for 8 months or so until his crop came in – and that year he made a profit. Paid back the loan.
FYI, he was one of maybe 5 Republicans in the entire county back then.
Sounds like your grandfather was living on credit, like a majority of us are forced to do via mortgages, credit cards, student loans etc. Nothing ever seems to change in some ways, does it?
Credit? No, not living on it. He got a loan from the bank for one year. That was living on credit. The rest of the years, he didn’t owe anyone anything.
You may have missed the point of the story.
Well, what can I say? I need more explaining, I guess. There is much to be learned about the business end of farming, and I am not convinced the policy makers understand it adequately, either.