The Myth of Farm Subsidies: Part II

More from the Heritage Foundation on Farm Subsidies:

Farmers Are Not Poor


Farming may be the most federally subsidized profession in America. The persistence of farm subsidy programs results from the popular misconception that they stabilize the incomes of poor family farmers who are at the mercy of unpredictable weather and crop prices. Yet a recent U.S. Department of Agriculture report concluded that, "On average, farm households have higher incomes, greater wealth, and lower consumption expenditures than all U.S. households." This statement can be broken down into three parts:


Higher incomes.


In 1999, the average farm household earned $64,437--17 percent more than the $54,842 average for non-farmers. Incomes were even higher among the 136,000 households with annual farm sales over $250,000--and who also receive the largest subsidies. Their 1999 average income of $135,397 was two-and-a-half times the national average. Farmer incomes are not only high, but also quite stable from year to year, despite agricultural market fluctuations.


Greater wealth.


The average farm household had a net worth of $563,563 in 1999--well above the $88,000 national average.


Lower consumption expenditures.


Farm households have fewer costs than other households because (1) the cost of living is lower in rural America; (2) farm households need to purchase less food from outside sources; and (3) mortgage and utility bills are often classified as business expenses. Consequently, the average farm household spent only $25,073 on goods and services in 1999, which is $11,000 less than the average non-farm family.

So once again the caring compassionate politicians and the government they run are subsidizing the wealthy and influential.

The Myth of Farm Subsidies

Farm Subsidies are just another case where the caring, compassionate government looks out for the rich at the expense of everyone else:

The nonprofit Environmental Working Group publishes information about the issue, including a database of farm subsidies. According to their Farm Subsidy Database, the top 10 recipients got 72% of the $143.5 billion US taxpayers paid to farmers over the past ten years. And just seven states took in half of that money, because only those states produce the corn, wheat, rice and cotton crops that account for 78% of the subsidies. Meanwhile, two-thirds of American's farmers and ranchers receive no direct government support.

From the Heritage Foundation:

Farm subsidies are among the most wasteful uses of taxpayer dollars. The budget-busting $180 billion farm bill enacted before the 2002 elections not only encourages the crop overproduction that depresses crop prices and farm incomes, but also undermines trade and encourages other nations to refuse American exports.

Perhaps worst of all, farm subsidies are not distributed to the small, struggling family farmers whom lawmakers typically mention when defending these policies. Rather, most farm subsidies are distributed to large farms, agribusinesses, politicians, and celebrity "hobby farmers."

So much for farm subsidies preserving the family farm.

He Died Because the Federal Government Would Not Let Him Live.

I wrote this seven years ago upon the death of Peter McWilliams and submitted it for publication in my local paper. It was not published. I came across it today going through my file of unpublished articles and decided to post it here as it is unfortunately still relevant today.

Peter McWilliams, a best-selling author of books on a variety of subjects, died on June 14, 2000. His death was tragedy because it should not have happened. McWilliams was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and AIDS in March 1996. Like many people being treated for cancer and AIDS, McWilliams would become nauseous from the chemotherapy and AIDS medications he needed to take along with radiation treatments. McWilliams tried various prescription anti nausea medications, but none worked for him. He then turned to a natural substance that has been around for thousands of years, marijuana. Smoking marijuana alleviated the nausea McWilliams had been suffering. This allowed McWilliams to keep his medications down and allowed him to eat.

McWilliams lived in California, where in November 1996 voters passed Proposition 215 which legalized the use of marijuana for medical purposes. McWilliams use of marijuana was legal in California. However, the Clinton Administration announced the federal government would ignore California law and prosecute anyone using marijuana for medical purposes. This seems a bit hypocritical coming from the administration of a man who jokes how hard he tried to inhale.

McWilliams was a marked man, because he openly advocated the use of medical marijuana. In 1997 federal drug agents raided McWilliams home seizing much of McWilliams’ personal property, including his personal computers that he used to write his books. Not long after, McWilliams was arrested and charged with conspiracy to grow marijuana. His mother and brother put up their homes as security to bail McWilliams out of jail. As a condition of McWilliams’ bail, he was not allowed to use marijuana and was subject to regular urine testing for marijuana. Not willing to risk his mother and brother’s homes, McWilliams followed the federal order to not use marijuana. The result was a return of the nausea, difficulty keeping food and medications down and a deterioration of McWilliams’ health.

With his health deteriorating and the tools of his livelihood confiscated, McWilliams was unable to work and forced into bankruptcy. This was not enough for the federal government. While awaiting trial, a federal judge ruled that McWilliams could not introduce as evidence for his defense any information about his illness, any scientific evidence supporting the medical use of marijuana nor the fact that medical marijuana is legal in California.

While awaiting sentencing McWilliams choked to death on his own vomit, a result of not being allowed to control his nausea. He died because the federal government would not let him live.
People of conscience must question a government doctrine that denies a human the right to try to preserve their own life. Exactly who or what is protected by barring the medical use of marijuana? Why is marijuana treated differently than say morphine which is also a controlled substance, but is allowed to be used for medical purposes?

Why would Bill Clinton, a person who admits he tried marijuana in search of pleasure, allow his administration to deny a person the right to try marijuana to save his life? Why would Republicans, who rail against increased federal power over individuals and states, sit idly by while the federal government ignores the Constitution and usurps the rights of California and its citizens?

Medical marijuana is just the tip of the iceberg of the whole issue of the so called "War on Drugs." Like most wars the biggest victims are the innocent: the children who are caught in the crossfire between gangs fighting over drug turf, honest Americans who are seeing increasing infringements on their privacy and property, and people like Peter McWilliams who are forbidden to take measures that they need to save their lives.

The Drug War like alcohol prohibition in the 1920's has come at a great cost to society, with little or no real benefit. Marijuana was a legal uncontrolled substance until the passage of the Marijuana Tax Act in 1937 and narcotics were legal and uncontrolled until the enactment of the Harrison Narcotic Act in 1914. However, these laws were largely unenforced until the late 1960's. As the drug war has escalated, the crime rate and the cost in dollars have escalated also. It is time to realize, that like the war on alcohol in the 1920's, the war on drugs is counterproductive and should be ended.

I realize that by taking this position, I open myself to the charge that I support the use of these drugs. Nothing could be further from the truth. Unlike the two major party presidential candidates who see nothing wrong with the drug war other than the need to escalate it. I can honestly say that I have never used any of these illegal substances. My position is merely a moral and practical position. It is moral because, as our libertarian Founding Fathers declared, we are all endowed with an unalienable right to control our own life. It is practical because the cost of the war on drugs to innocent citizens and society as whole is excessive beyond any reason. End the insane "Drug War" now!

The Meaning of Independence Day

Here is a commentary I wrote that was published in the Rochester Post Bulletin on June 29, 2007:

This Fourth of July as we go about our activities with family and friends, we all should take some time to reflect upon the true significance of the holiday. Yes, it is a celebration of our country's Declaration of Independence from Great Britain, but it is much more than that. It is a celebration of an idea that was revolutionary then and unfortunately is still considered revolutionary by many today.

The Declaration of Independence boldly states: "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government ..."

This revolutionary declaration is the foundation of American political thought and has inspired millions around the world in the 231 years since Thomas Jefferson wrote it. The common view at the time was that rights were granted by the government to the people. Instead, Jefferson declared there is a higher law, "unalienable Rights," that every human has by their mere existence. Government only has those powers granted to it by the people, to protect these natural rights.

Unfortunately today it seems that many have rejected Jefferson's declaration and have returned to the antiquated idea of government supremacy. They define patriotism as supporting the government. Most disheartening of all are the discussions about the Constitution.

Political commentators, major party politicians and Supreme Court nominees talk about our "constitutional rights," as if the government were granting us our rights through the Constitution.

Nothing could be farther from the truth. In the Constitution, the founders again make it abundantly clear that all power comes from the people. The Constitution is a document where the people have granted the government certain limited powers: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Further, the Ninth Amendment declares: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Because so many Americans have forgotten the fundamental idea behind the founding of this Country, today we have people willing to abandon our basic liberties, giving the government the power to do anything it wants.

They falsely assume that invasions of liberty and privacy will not affect them, though history has shown otherwise. Too many today are willing to abandon freedom for the illusion of security.

Benjamin Franklin said: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

This Fourth of July please take time out from the celebrations to reflect on the founders' vision for America.

Ron Paul a Man of Consistency

Here is an interview of Ron Paul when he was running for President as the Libertarian candidate in 1988.