New Democrat Update - August 2007
ENDING FARM WELFARE AS WE KNOW IT
There are many progressive reasons to root out government corporate welfare and take down unfair trade barriers that protect domestic businesses. Otherwise, the middle class and those less fortunate - here and abroad - continue to get hit from all sides.
Through their taxes, working families subsidize the very businesses and people who least need the help. Even after picking up that tab, they often pay again - this time in the form of higher prices.
Federal subsidies to agribusinesses may possibly be the worst form of corporate welfare. Taxpayers anted up $26 billion for the programs in 2005 - twice what gets spent on college for poor children. Unfair trade protection practices resulted in American households paying an extra $146 annually at grocery stores and restaurants - another $16.2 billion out of the wallets of consumers and right into the pockets of producers, according to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). That especially hurts poorer families who spend a higher proportion of their income on food.
The recipients of these government subsidies are not very needy themselves. The median wealth of farm households is more than five times higher than the average American family - farm household income in 2003 was $214,200, more than three times that of that typical household.
About 70 percent of all the money goes to the richest 10 percent of farmers, who are not, by any measure, owners of “family farms.” The top 1 percent of farmers receive $125,000 a year in federal payments.
At the same time, 57 percent of farmers receive nothing - two thirds of those who do get less than $10,000. The average mega farm - with annual revenues over $250,000 - gets $70,000 in annual subsidies.
Family farms are the real victims. Since subsidies are based on farm size and production, large owners often use the money to acquire more land, pushing aside small and medium-size farms, as well as young farmers starting out. The average farm size has more than doubled in the past two decades. Fewer than 14 percent of rural residents even work on farms.
U. S. subsidies also hurt Third World farmers by encouraging U.S. overproduction, artificially depressing world prices for commodities. Poor farmers aboard lose every time when they have to compete with the U.S. Treasury.
Additionally, these food programs are not aligned with nutritional guidelines and usually favor the products of politically powerful commodity groups. They encourage growing the very cheap-carbohydrate crops that have helped make America an overweight nation, resulting in higher health care costs and reduced life expectancy.
It gets worse. These handouts damage the environment and wildlife through increased lost topsoil and wasted water, along with harmful fertilizers and pesticides. They also artificially prevent farmland from being used for reforestation, recreation and other environmentally friendly purposes.
Finally, global barriers and farm payments hurt rural America’s economic prospects. The Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City found that “job gains are weak and population growth is actually negative in most of the counties where farm payments are the biggest share of farm income.” If trade protectionist policies were eliminated, American farmers would export a net $60 billion more (after deducting for increased imports).
Instead of maintaining the counterproductive status quo, Democrats should be for reducing payments to mega farms and investing the savings in a new reenergized federal rural development effort. The savings should go for research and evaluation of best practices in rural development, a performance-based grant program to states to jointly support innovative rural strategies, and research in technologies likely to increase rural economic activity (for example, wind energy).
It is way past time to bring agriculture into the 21st century. Farm subsidies and unfair trade protections do not strengthen rural America.
They sap it.
MAKING COLORADO SAFER
Coloradans have another reason to be thankful for the election of Bill Ritter as governor. In stark contrast to his predecessor, this administration has made state homeland security a serious top priority.
The 9/11 attacks occurred during ex-Governor Bill Owens’ tenure but his administration never tackled the issue seriously. Functions operated under six different laws and were dispersed over seven departments. None of those bureaucracies - or no one for that matter - could be held accountable.
To make matters worse, Owens’ so-called anti-terrorism plan lacked substance, specifics, and time frames, containing no measurable goals by which someone could measure its progress or lack thereof. The plan was filled with ambiguous feel-good goals like "enhancing communications between state and local governments."
No one was ever able to truly evaluate if and when a vague objective like that had been meaningfully accomplished. As an accountable plan of action, one private sector professional at the time of its release graded it a "D," passing it off as a mere political document.
That lack of any real planning, combined with a disorganized effort, had its unfortunate consequences. The state never really got around to evaluating, planning and implementing security programs. Threats were never adequately identified and evaluated. No plan was ever developed on how state government could continue operating in the event of a terrorist attack.
In addition, because of the improper use of funds, the state had to give back $1.5 million to the federal government. More than $2 million in state money was spent inappropriately. Not surprisingly, Washington is conducting still another audit.
A bipartisan state Senate panel, headed by ex-State Sen. Dan Grossman, tried to work cooperatively with the Owens administration, to no avail. All of the committee’s major recommendations were ignored.
That unfortunate legacy means that Colorado must now play some serious catch-up. Thankfully, immediately upon taking office last January, Ritter directed his administration to conduct a detailed review of homeland security and emergency management programs.
Last month, he took action and created the position of the Governor’s Homeland Security Coordinator, to be filled by retired Colorado National Guard Maj. Gen. Mason Whitney, who reports directly to Ritter. Former state Auditor Joanne Hill will oversee the financial component, and Kent Smiley, the former director of safety programs for Denver’s technology services division, is in charge of the Governor’s Continuity of Operations/Continuity of Government programs.
“One of state government’s most critical responsibilities is to do all we can to keep Coloradans safe and secure and to respond to emergencies,” Ritter said. “I can think of no better person than Gen. Whitney to lead this effort, which will include crafting a unified state strategy, helping us maximize dwindling federal grant dollars and creating a sustainable homeland security program.”
It proves, once again, that elections do matter.