Category Archives: Op-Eds

Let’s Call the Farm Bill What it is: Corporate Welfare

Tractor, CC0 from MaxPixel

Zippy Duvall, president of the American Farm Bureau Federation,  doesn’t want the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 — the “Farm Bill” — used as a political bargaining chip. “Our nation’s farmers and ranchers are not pawns in a political game,” he writes. “They are the lifeblood of our nation.”

Duvall’s claims might be more convincing if he didn’t make them right after  touting the political power of the agriculture lobby in unseating members of Congress deemed insufficiently loyal to it, powering “rural America’s” election of Donald Trump to the presidency, etc. … and threatening to use that political power as needed to preserve the tens of billions of dollars in corporate welfare represented by the Farm Bill.

Yes, corporate welfare.

As of 1870, one of every two Americans worked in agriculture. As of 2012, that number was less than one in 50 and sinking fast toward one in 100. Advances in science and technology allow one fiftieth as many people to feed ten times as many mouths (not counting exports) now as then.

Those advances have come hand in hand with corporate consolidation of the same sort seen in other industries.  The day of the Depression-era family farm that my mother grew up on as one of 12 children, operating on human and animal power until they got their first truck right after World War Two and electricity shortly after that, is long gone. The kind of subsistence farm I lived on as a child, and the single-family operations my dad served as a dairy worker until his retirement in the 1990s, are fading away as well. Today, nearly all of the food you eat is produced either by, or under contract to, a few large companies.

The rawboned, overall-clad man driving a tractor 12 hours a day, calling the cows in for their evening milking, slopping the hogs, and sitting down for an evening pipe on the front porch before bed was once my grandfather. Now he’s a carefully cultivated image of the past, used by organizations like Duvall’s to propagandize for the transfer of billions dollars every year from your pockets to theirs via the political process, on top of what you spend in honest exchange for their livestock and crops.

The Farm Bill isn’t going to save a way of life that for practical purposes no longer exists, nor is it going to bring back that way of life. In fact,  a century of agricultural subsidies and welfare programs are at least partially responsible for killing off the family farm as we once knew it. Those subsidies and programs attracted people who were more interested in the subsidies and programs than in the farming. In this case, literally, the one percent.

Don’t reform the Farm Bill. Kill it.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

Election Omens: Blue Wave or 2018 Flushes?

RGBStock.com Vote Pencil

Coming out of the 2016 presidential election, Democrats had reason for optimism about their House and Senate prospects in 2018. In the last 21 midterm elections (starting with FDR’s first term), the president’s party has gained seats in both houses of Congress only twice (1934 and 2002) while gaining seats in one house but not both four times (1962,  1970,  1982, and 1998). On average, the president’s party loses 30 House seats and four Senate seats.

So, are we in for a “Blue Wave,” or for the electoral equivalent of a commercial for blue-toned  water swirling in the toilet?

As I write this, no combination of Republican/Democratic control of the houses is trading at more than 41 cents (of a possible dollar) on PredictIt, where people have real money riding on the outcome.  That’s a bad sign for the opposition.

Democrats are outpacing Republicans on the national “generic ballot,” but each House district is a separate contest, most of them gerrymandered as a “safe” seat for one party or the other. The CBS/YouGov Battleground Tracker, as of early June,  rates the House as a tossup: Democrats climbing from 194 seats to a one-seat majority of 219, but with a nine-seat margin of error.

The Blue Wave isn’t shaping up as a tsunami. Why?

One clue might be the gigantic collective yawn greeting rumors that former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz might run for president in 2020. His centrist “Democrats need to look more like Republicans to win” message — also pushed by the Democratic National Committee versus upstart progressive midterm  primary candidates around the country — just doesn’t excite anyone very much.

A second clue: In California’s June 5 primaries,  five independents, two Greens, and one Libertarian battled their way past the state’s “Top Two” primary barrier and onto November’s general election ballot, from which the “Top Two” scheme was expressly designed to exclude them in favor of Republicans and Democrats (mostly Democrats). Independents come in all flavors, but Greens and Libertarians reliably run from the Democratic establishment’s left on civil liberties issues.

The message: Putting a “D” next to your name,  not liking Donald Trump, and telling scary stories about the Russians is not enough this year.  Traditionally Democratic constituencies are up for grabs because their usual party of preference isn’t offering them anything of substance.

In the short term, Democrats are courting losses that could have been wins. In the long term, they may finally be creating an opening for the third party America desperately needs.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

Trump the Politician: Anti-Abortion vs. Anti-Immigration

CC0 Public Domain dedication, via Max Pixel

In early June,  Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (“the gay wedding cake case”) soaked up most of the Supreme Court decision media limelight, even though (or perhaps because) the court’s ruling doesn’t really dispose of the major issues in the case. Another case, also not decided on its merits, got much less attention. But that case reveals conflicting priorities in, and signals from, the Trump administration.

In Hargan v. Garza,  a pregnant teen immigrant (“Jane Doe”) in federal detention was forbidden by Trump administration policy  to procure an abortion (at her own expense or with voluntary assistance from others, not on the taxpayer’s dime). SCOTUS dismissed the matter as “moot” because Doe’s supporters took her to a clinic for the procedure in the middle of the night, after a supportive lower court ruling and before the federal government could appeal that ruling.

Donald Trump has spent considerable time railing against, and his administration has tirelessly worked to find,  detain, and deport, immigrants who don’t get permission slips from politicians before coming here to enrich America’s culture and boost its economy. In particular, we’ve heard plenty of invective from Trump about “chain migration,” “anchor babies,” and “birthright citizenship.”

When it comes to abortion, on the other hand, Trump has been much less consistent. He went from sponsoring National Abortion Rights Action League (1989) to declaring himself “very pro-choice” (1999), to suddenly becoming ardently “pro-life” during his failed first presidential campaign (for the Reform Party’s 2000 nomination; he dropped out when he realized he was going to lose to Pat Buchanan, from whom he’s shamelessly cribbed ever since). But as late as 2016, he opined to CBS that “at this moment, the laws are set. And I think we have to leave it that way.”

Trump’s position on immigration is seemingly long-held and consistent. Consistently wrong, but consistent. His position on abortion, though is transparently political and changes as politics requires.

Hargan v. Garza  tells us which side Trump really thinks his bread is buttered on: The politics as usual, grease the squeaky pro-life wheel side. His administration holds, as a matter of policy so important that it deserves escalation to the Supreme Court if necessary, that pregnant immigrants absolutely, positively, must be forced to deliver shiny new “birthright citizens,” even if they’re willing to pay for their own abortions.

I wonder what his “build the wall, deport them all” base thinks about that?

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY