Agriculture Subsidies: How Much is Too Much?  There is likely as much misconception about government support of agriculture in this country as there is about any federal program.  A lot of that misunderstanding is due to the fact that even though the Department that serves as the vessel for ag subsidies is called Agriculture, the majority of the money it spends would be better identified as belonging under another federal cabinet.  In reality, the actual farmers in this country receive a fairly small percentage of the entire USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture) budget.  So, the first point I would like to submit is that when you consider the very small percentage of total federal expenditures dedicated to supporting active farmers and relate that to the fact that our country enjoys the most diverse, affordable, and abundant food supply on the planet….well, that is a bargain in anyone’s mind.  On the other hand, if you want to disagree about exactly how those limited funds are actually spent or the policy that drives the payments, then that can be fodder for a very long and worthy discussion.

The role of government in agriculture is as essential as the money we spend on defense.  The best equipped soldier in the world is subpar if they are hungry.  Food and fiber, the elements supported by USDA, are a critical part of each American’s life and our ability to feed ourselves and a large part of the world’s population gives our country strength and leverage that could be obtained in no other fashion.  The tricky part is this: It is the government’s goal to insure the survival of agriculture while not insuring the survival of each individual farmer.

While business investment is as varied as our culture, farming certainly is one of the most unique of all.  It is the only business I can think of where the owner/operator buys inputs at retail and sells their finished product at wholesale.  And even though there is some safety net available through government programs and federal crop insurance, the ability to make an annual profit is pretty much dependent on the fickle lady herself…mother nature.  It is a lonely feeling indeed to borrow on all you have to plant a crop and then have to sit back and pray for the right weather to bring in a decent harvest. 

Probably the second largest misconception about agriculture is the environmental attacks that it constantly endures.  Not to say that there is not any criticism warranted; there certainly is.  Pesticides that are absolutely essential to obtaining adequate crop yields for reasonable profit need improved research prior to commercial release.  Even though the overwhelming majority of farmers are the world’s greatest conservationists (they HAVE to be, their livelihood depends on the land), the stewardship of our natural resources requires constant vigilance.  There are certain feeding practices in the livestock industry, especially the feeder operations out west, which could use a bit more scrutiny and transparency in regards to guaranteeing a wholesome product.  But all things considered, the people who till the land to produce food and fiber and the people who manage livestock to feed so many do so in the context of a business that finds rewards hard to come by but is riddled with risks.  Most farmers farm because they were born into that profession and because they have a deep, abiding love and respect for the land and what it can produce.  They love the independence of the profession and take pride in surviving the personal trials it entails.  You have to realize this: Once we lose a farmer (once they sell out and move to another vocation), they are typically not replaced.  It falls to the other men and women in agriculture to pick up the slack and to increase production accordingly. The average age of the American farmer is not 20-something, it is late 50-something.  The 20-somethings are their children that hopefully decide to stay with the family operation rather than move out of agriculture into another sector of our economy.

Once again, I do not advocate that a farmer be guaranteed business success by our government simply because they feed our nation and much of the planet.  Like all business, farming is choice and there are inherent risks that go along with the potential rewards.  But it would be the height of foolishness to cut all support for American agriculture and run the risk of the industry failing.  You think the banks were too big to fail?  You think the oil shortage, gas lines, and high gas prices were painful?  Let this country get in a position where it is unable to feed itself and we will all quickly learn how another country’s will can be exercised when they have something you need.

So the next time sometime comments to you about a rich farmer driving a new pickup truck, living in a big house, and using all new equipment….well, just don’t buy into that.  It ain’t the real world.  Those boys are out there, but they don’t last too long. It’s the ones that have some holes in the shed walls and roof, some rusted sheet metal on their equipment, somewhere north of 100,000 miles on their pickup, and depend on their wife’s help to get the work done and her job to keep health insurance; those are the ones toting the load.  They need their kids and friends to lean on when a crisis hits through weather events or health failures.  They have to dig deep every spring and convince themselves, once again, to mortgage all they have in order to put out a crop on a promise of rain showers and sunshine.  They have to trust that if everything breaks their way and they actually bring in a good harvest, they will actually receive a fair price for their product when they sell….hopefully for more than they have in it.  Folks…farming is everybody’s bidness…and THAT is the truth.  Argue about the policies and the programs; argue about the efficiency of the government support delivery systems; argue about the balance between subsidy and free markets; but never doubt the wisdom in the small government investment that insures that each of us and our children will be able to eat today and tomorrow.    

More Gun Control?  In the aftermath of the Aurora, Colorado movie theatre tragedy, there is new energy in the debate about laws regarding gun ownership in America. An old saying goes something like….”you can compromise on practice, but never on principle”.  There is lot of truth to this nugget, but the rub comes when we try to distinguish practice from principle.  The far left on this issue wants guns out of the hands and homes of citizens and the sole property of law enforcement and the military.  The far right demands that it is our right as Americans to own any type and just as many of any gun that we choose.  Once again, the sensible solution lies somewhere in between.

There is no question that Americans have a right and privilege, guaranteed and provided by our founding fathers, to own guns for their self protection.  This right should be further extended to the areas of hunting and sport shooting.  On the other hand, it is hard to justify exactly why any common man or woman should want to won an automatic weapon such as an AK47 or similar firearms designed for assault and attack.

I was born and raised in a rural area.  I hunted as a youth and even though I no longer participate in hunting, I allow my friends to hunt on my property and have no objection to it.  I own several guns, but none would be considered assault or attack weapons.  My home is somewhat isolated in the country and there have been occasions in my adult life when the rifle or shotgun has come off the wall when something strange goes “bump in the night”.  On the occasions when I have had to travel overnight from home, I have taken comfort in the fact that wife has a handgun within reach and knows how to use it if the need presents itself.

Obviously, I have no objections of gun ownership.  However, I do believe that it is absolutely reasonable to expect gun owners to be accountable for this privilege and deal with it responsibly.  I have no problems with outlawing commercial sales of certain types of assault or attack weapons that have no practical application in hunting or sport.  Further, I have no problem with registering my firearms and being held responsible for their control and management.  I know that many gun rights folks say that gun registration is simply a “foot in the door” and the next step will be outlawing guns entirely.   Unfortunately, there is some validity to this concern.   There are people in positions of power who will use gun registration as a stepping stone to a higher goal.  However, the issue at hand today is not that higher goal.  The issue today is trying to strike a balance between the right to own private arms and the common sense use of laws to protect society.  Even though it certainly will not solve all of our gun control problems in this country, outlawing certain types of guns and requiring responsible ownership through registration are two very good steps in the process.

The Fiscal Cliff.  Once again, our Congress is nearing an impasse on a critical element of necessary governance: the expiration of the Bush tax cuts.   The common sense solution to this issue is clearly to extend the current tax rates for one year; giving “whomever” is elected President in November an opportunity to work out some type of tax reform with the new Congress.  It is difficult to understand why the Democrats do not understand the wisdom of this course.  Perhaps they have gazed into their crystal ball and see that with little or no chance of regaining control of the House, increasing the upper tax rate is the best outcome they can hope for in the foreseeable future.  On the other hand, Republicans are likely relishing the notion they will retain the House and possibly gain the Senate and White House, thus giving them relatively free reign to rewrite the tax laws.   If we accept both of these assumptions, the largest negotiation margin must lie with the Republicans.  If they now concede to an increase in the higher rates in return for continuing all others and preventing a trip over the cliff, they should have an opportunity next year to rewrite the agreement more to their liking when they assume greater control of government. 

A case can be made both to leave the rates intact until after the coming election in order to allow the “will of the people” to made evident and to pursue the Democratic position of raising the upper rates for now and dealing with the “larger” reform issue later. 

For me, rationality dictates that the simplest course is the best course; and that course is to simply extend the current rates.  It has become such an ordeal for this Congress to agree on anything that adding necessary civility to the formula does nothing more than to guarantee stalemate and likely failure.