Good for Vermont?

The state's newspapers are acting more like cheerleaders than objective reporters of the news when it comes to the farm bill just passed by Congress:

The biggest victory for Vermont is a provision to renew and expand the federal milk subsidy program to boost payments and help farmers cope with rising energy and feed costs.
--Burlington Free Press

Farm bill will benefit Vermont, lawmakers say
--Rutland Herald

What's most revealing about these articles is what they don't say.    Suppose  the Vermont legislature passed a bill that raised everyone's taxes and the price of food in order to give payments to a select group of people, with most of the money going to very well-to-do Vermonters.  Someone managed to put in an "income sensitivity" provision that limited the payments to people earning under $750,000, hardly what anyone would consider low income. 

That bill would have been met with howls of protest.  But you won't find any discussion of all the problems with the farm bill that was passed on the editorial or news pages of the state's newspapers.  (At least VPR gave a brief nod to the pork in the bill in its report.)

Back to Vermont:  A little bit of research would have shown an enterprising reporter that 2,000 Vermont farmers received $16 million in federal subsidies (in Vermont, nearly all going to dairy farmers) in 2006.  Did that help family farms?  The 100 largest recipients of taxpayer largesse received 30% of all the subsidies--$5 million.  One Vermont farm received $173,000  and another $144,000. Hardly struggling family farms.  Nationally, 10% of all farmers received 75% of all federal subsidy payments. 

And remember that farm income is now at an all time high.  One would think that good times on the farm would call for fewer federal subsidies.  That's not the way things work in Washington.  There are more federal subsidies in this farm bill than in the last one, passed five years ago.

The takeaway from any article on the farm bill should be that it is a good example of what's wrong in Washington.   There are a small number of beneficiaries who get a lot of money, and 300 million consumers and taxpayers whose food bill and taxes are higher because of it.  And for this, Vermont newspapers declare it a "victory" for Vermont. 

Comments

[Karen Kerin]

Art has nailed it squarely, but neglected to point out that the money coming into Vermont will be significantly less than the increased costs going out due to higher prices for everything from sugar to grain.

[Jim Gatti]

Let's see, the first time that I read something comparable to Art's comments on farm subsidies, was 1958, and I was a junior in high school, and it was "old news" then. The ones we elect keep doing it over, and over and over. I dispair at ever seeing real reform in this area.

[M. Hodak]

Well done, Art. Congratulations on the coverage!

I have to say, though, I wasn't surprised that the one state with an avowedly socialist congressman has a left-leaning press. On the other hand, I hope you're not a Green Mountain rarity.

[kb richard]

Way to show some honesty in the face of the "Sacred Cow"

Your average Vermonter dosen't want corprate welfare, state welfare or US federal pork welfare.

With this bill still feeding "fatcats" our good Mr.Leahy may have made less then best decisions in this matter.

[DB]

Thank you for speaking out about this disgusting dairy subsidy. Why anyone would want to subsidize the dairy industry under any circumstances is beyond me. This is truly a completely disgusting, environmentally horrendous and inhumane industry. All the folks who voted for this a**backward subsidy should have to go and live next to one of those sickening manure ponds, or more appropriately titled, sh*t ponds for sh*t sprayers. Did you know that not only is all of this stench coming from these nasty dairy farms, is not only just nauseating, but this waste causes respiratory and cardiovascular disease? Also, contributes to acid rain as it breaks down into ammonium nitrate and ammonium sulfate? Not to mention the devastation done to the water systems. And who's going to be paying to clean up the environment as a result of this? The farmers? Doubt it. Oh, some like to say they are using rBGH-free milk, which has been linked to breast cancer. Milk is extremely unhealth, from what I have read. Milk even without rBGH still has the hormone which is linked to breast cancer, it just doesn't have as much. And what about all of this very dangerous genetically engineered corn folks are growing to feed to their beasts? The stuff should never have been approved in the first place, and only was because of corruption. Did you know that there are more greenhouse gases coming from livestock than from all transportation combined? Didn't Vermont recently win a lawsuit after suing another state for acid rain damage to the VT forests? From coal plants, perhaps? Well, maybe they weren't thinking about how all of this dairy waste also contributes to acid rain and that maybe they should sue themselves instead? Dairy is linked to obesity, heart disease, cancer, asthma, acne, and many other health problems, it is inhumane, environmentally devastating, and absolutely not in any way anything that anyone seriously thinking of calling as themselves progressive would ever support in all honesty. Thanks so much for speaking out about this. Maybe one day truly progressive people will help clean up the mess the dairy industry has certainly made of Vermont, and get rid of the foul cow sh*t stench in the process?

[trice]

I agree with Art's assessment and, even as a dairy farmer, have always felt that it is a business like any other and should not be subsidized. But shall we take a count of how many industries are now subsidized by "we the people"? At what point in history did electricity and medical care and heating fuel become a civil right? Since our dear leaders have discovered how easy it is to redistribute other people's money for special interests that benefit of only a few but translate into a lot of votes...all that's necessary is to tag the effort as a benefit "for the children" or the disadvantaged-of-the-week. In actuality, it helps no one. Those who reap the benefits directly are indirectly made dependent on and subservient to the system, and hence less able to inclined to compete and be self-sufficient -- a morally deficient state.

Also, DB needs to research some more recent studies on health benefits of dairy products. Children brought up on whole milk are much more likely to be fit and healthy than the opposite. It is a major factor in muscle building and metabolism. And he can blame environmentalists for the use of manure containment systems as a way to reduce pollution. Last year's water quality samples of Lake Champlain tributaries were found to be most contaminated by urban and suburban run-off, yet agriculture still receives the most scrutiny and regulation. But you didn't hear much from mainstream media about that.

[James Ehlers]

Dear KB,
You wrote: "Your average Vermonter dosen't want corprate welfare, state welfare or US federal pork welfare."

I believe 30 percent of our state budget is federal dollars.

Sincerely,
James Ehlers

[DB]

Here is an interesting news item on serious air pollution public health problems associated with dairy farming, of possible interest, in case you did not see this one.

Fumes from dairy cause neighbors to evacuate
by Stephanie Hemphill, Minnesota Public Radio
June 10, 2008
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/06/09/farm/

Per the article above, why might I guess that Vermont does not have such laws regulating hydrogen sulfide levels coming from dairy farms, or such monitoring, or such Public Health Department regulatory authority in place? Go vegetarian! And help stop the enormous environmental and public health problems associated with livestock production.

Why aren't more environmental groups, many who are working on global warming issues, making strong statements in support of vegetarian diets? From what I have read, the consumption of animal products is the number one cause of global warming. Many write/say you can't call yourself and environmentalist and eat meat, dairy, etc.?

[DB]

And here is another good site from PETA asking folks to off-set Al Gore by going vegetarian for thirty days.

http://www.offsetalgore.com

Pretty funny!

Excerpt:

The following are a few inconvenient truths that the former V.P. ignores:

* A major United Nations study determined that the meat industry generates 40 percent more greenhouse-gas emissions than all the cars, trucks, SUVs, ships, and planes in the world combined.
* Researchers at the University of Chicago concluded that going vegan is 50 percent more effective in combating the climate crisis than switching to a hybrid car.
* The official handbook of the Live Earth concerts that Gore helped organize acknowledges that not eating meat is "the single most effective thing" you can do to reduce your climate change impact (emphasis in original).

And, no thanks, I won't be reading a bunch of, what many smart people call, junk science studies in support of eating animal products. When I read something claiming a medical benefit from something, I first try to find out who might have sponsored such a study and if authoritative folks supporting such claims might have a financial conflict of interest? Some of you might also like to do a search on studies linking pesticides to autism, parkinson's, lower IQs in children, birth deformities, cancer, and studies linking animal products to breast cancer, colon cancer, prostate cancer, heart disease, obesity, etc. Also, you might be interested in reading about studies in support of health benefits of vegetarian diets, how vegans have much, much lower rates of many common diseases associated with consuming animal and other junk food products?

[Brattleboro_conservative]

Gee DB,
Did you ever consider the amount of greenhouse gases are generated from the movement and refrigerated storage of the things that go into a vegetarian diet? Ever consider the cost of all that manure to fertilize those organic crops in terms of the hydrogen sulfide gas manure generates? I would not be so quick to stand on a soapbox and preach about the benefits of a vegetarian diet as it isn't so energy efficient as you claim.

Oh yes, PETA is into killing animals too. It seems your friends at PETA were caught dumping a bunch euthanized pets into a dumpster recently and then denied the whole thing. PETA is also known to keep huge freezers for keeping all the "companion animals" they kill.

If you really are so interested in the green lifestyle, go into the woods with a .22 and rustle up some rabbits and squirrels sometime. After all, hunting and taking game for food is the least invasive way of getting protein into one's diet. It was good enough for generations of Vermonters, and it's surely good enough for you...

[DB]

This last comment is completely idiotic and really does not deserve a response, but in the hope that someone might learn something...

No! Hunting is absolutely not the least invasive way of adding protein to a diet. This is absurd. From what I have read, every year PEOPLE are injured and killed by idiot or homicidal hunting 'accidents.' Many would absolutely not call these deaths and injuries 'accidents,' and say basically, as gun-toting yahoos go out into the woods, often on other people's property without the land owner's permission or knowledge, are often near roads, residences, and hiking trails, etc., and are shooting in basically an uncontrolled environment, at moving things, knowing full well that they could end up shooting a PERSON, such incidents are truly not accident.

Also, have read: Every year millions of animals are injured by hunters and never even caught and/or eaten by hunters, that much of this is just plain cruelty without any type of lame justification at all such as providing something for some poor soul to eat.

Also, all of this lead from lead bullets ends up contaminating the environment, and all kinds of invasive plant, animal, and insect species are introduced to areas by hunters, via their fishing boats and imported firewood, etc.-- species which never would have been able to have moved to these areas without traveling along with hunters (and others). These invasive species have done BILLIONS of dollars of damage to forests and waterways.

Also, wild animals are part of the ENVIRONMENT, so not sure how terrorizing and mutilating (what some like to dress up and call 'hunting') defenseless animals could possibly be considered non-invasive to the environment. Many might call this sicko, and definitely not non-invasive, from what I have been reading about this. Some folks call hunters coming onto their land to hunt, without their permission, HOME INVASIONS even. Apparently, some folks even think of this as a form of domestic terrorism as hunters are often potentially risking the lives of others? Think that only ignorant, reckless, selfish, and/or those with little regard and respect for public safety are interested in hunting? For many is a macho-creepy bully sport?

Fortunately, from what I have read, hunting in the U.S. is on the decline, the younger generations are overall not really interested in hunting, many find it disgusting, and an old and tired fashion which is definitely no longer in style.

And what about what I read about how there are lots of men going out hunting together, kind of a men's weekend thing or something I guess, and getting drunk as skunks on their guy's hunting weekends? This sounds awfully unsafe-- drunk gun toting, uh, hunters out there shooting at things moving around in the woods? Oh, yes, one is supposed to be a good little hunter and identify their targets first, as to be sure to not shoot one's hunting partner by accident (which I guess is not uncommon)? Yeah, and drunk drivers are always real good at identifying the boundaries of the road, trees, pedestrians, other cars, speed limit signs, etc., too!! What a joke!!

If folks need to get their thrills shooting guns, make them take it inside in a shooting gallery, keep them out of EVERYONE'S public lands and other people's private property. Some also say, how is it that a VERY small minority think they OWN and have a right to kill the animals which belong to everyone? If the animals are on public lands, then just like the public lands, everyone owns them, not a small group of hunters, to do with them as they will. Everyone should have a right to enjoy the outdoors, public lands without the fear of being SHOT by some ignorant, reckless or DRUNK hunter.

OMG! What about those news stories of some hunter having sex with a dead deer?! I tell you, sounds like some real weirdos are being allowed to just run amok out there shooting and doing who knows what to these poor animals. Hunters are a public hazard, if nothing else. No one should be allowed to go around shooting guns in such an uncontrolled manner.

Diets which are vegan and consist of locally and organically grown foods have been proven to be best for the environment. Here is another good article on this, below. And gosh, golly gee, why not do a few searches and read the full story about what happened with Peta?

UN Says Eat Less Meat To Curb Global Warming: Climate expert urges radical shift in diet
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2008/09/07-4

I'd be happy to just see folks cut down on their meat/animal consumption. The rate of animal consumption going on now is truly obscene, horrifying. Have a good one and try having nice hands without guns? :-)

[Brattleboro_conservative]

Calling my comments idiotic shows a certain lack of maturity. And frankly, I for one do not care what the UN wants or recommends. There are a lot of hunters in this state and if you and your enviro friends have a hard time dealing with it, then too bad.

[DB]

Oh, and I don't have time to look this up right now, but for those who are interested, do a few searches on 'hunting myths,' to read rebuttals to common (repeated ad nauseam) pro hunting lines often put out there by ignorant folks trying to justify hunting, trying to make hunting sound like it is just a good thing. I want to read more, when I have some time which probably isn't going to be soon, about how different hunting practices endangers different native animal species. Like raising a bunch of non-native birds for release into the wild for hunting endangers native bird populations, in some areas, I think is one thing I have read. Have a good one! There is tons of information on the internet about the many problems with hunting, for those who are interested in educating themselves. (Ha! Ha! There is a pretty funny hunting scene in this film called Meet Bill, I think is the name. I didn't see the whole thing, don't know if I would have liked the whole film, but does a pretty good job of making hunting look idiotic.)

[Brattleboro_conservative]

Wow DB, thanks so much for enlightening all of us. I'm sure all my hunting buddies will love seeing your answer.

By the way, care to buy a raffle ticket for a real nice hunting rifle?