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...