Diane Katz is a respected writer and thinker from The Heritage Foundation (THF). The think tank founded by the co-founder of The Moral Majority, ALEC and just about every other important right wing organization you can name. Ms. Katz the writer of the piece informed me that this was not the case. ?Apparently Wiki and forty years of news reports are wrong. ?You decide.??Diane was also courteous enough to comment on this article. Even though we disagree on some points she was willing to engage with me, even when I was being critical of her views. ?I am grateful to her cooperation and hope that at some point in the future we can meet face to face and discuss how to fix the world.
On THF’s daily blog, The Morning Bell, on June 12, 2013 Ms Katz and Daren Bakst c0-wrote , ?20 Completely Unjustified Programs In The House Farm Bill? .
?1. Income limitation for commodity and conservation programs.?Allows the?wealthy (annual adjusted gross income up to $950,000) to collect agriculture subsidies. So much for ?family farmers.? ?
Where we ?agree is ?in what defines a ?family farm? or a small farm? If you are bringing home just shy of a million dollars after costs of doing business shouldn’t we be more selective in handing out cash to you? And I can find no definition that would keep corporate owned farms from receiving this gift of cash. Should we even continue a program where over sixty percent of the money goes to only ten percent of the recipients? ?Doesn’t that seem rigged?
?2. Demonstration projects on Acceptance of Benefits of Mobile Transactions. Enables needy food stamp recipients to use their iPhones to make grocery purchases.?
I’m not entirely opposed to this especially when this section of the bill (102) combined with the next section (103) provides for the use of benefits for a community supported agriculture share (like a co-op.) What I do have a problem with is that too many of our Food Stamp dollars go to fast food outlets and expensive corner markets.? Also this means a portion of every dollar spent goes to a private company that will manage ?the ?virtual card? (and the meta data) ?for every recipient. ?I also can’t find a cost listed for this program. I think Food Stamp money needs to pay for food period.
I find the ?writers used the word iPhone rather than smartphone in their piece. I am fairly certain this was intentional so that we would think of the ?Cadillac Welfare Queen? that the right has been scaring us with for forty years. Considering you can get smartphones for free by signing up for a plan and that many of those plans are cheaper than local phone service and also come with internet service I’m not sure about this choice of words. It seems mean spirited and manipulative. ?Ms Katz, when questioned about this, said that I could not be “fairly certain” of her thinking when it comes to word choice. I will say that word choice matters. And my opinion is simply that. I do not know what her intention was in choosing her language but that is the way it came across.
?3. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) pilot program for the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.?Expands food stamp benefits among the 58,000 inhabitants of 15 islands in the western Pacific Ocean.?
This is a big issue that needs discussion all on its own. The right has a point that Food Stamps (FS) should be its own bill and its own program separate from The Farm Bill. If the majority of the money in The Farm Bill goes to Food Stamps then it is not a farm bill. While I have little doubt that I and the writers of this piece disagree about the validity of FS we agree that they should be two distinct bills. Ms. Katz corrected me in saying that I don’t know what she thinks about the Food Stamp program. True. She doesn’t take a position in this article. She also chose not to share her position with me. However others on her side of the spectrum are quite clear about letting people starve.?
?4. Rural Business Investment Program.?Provides $20 million annually to create government-subsidized businesses in places evidently inhospitable to private business investment.?
This is from Sections 301 to 304 of the bill.? I’m not sure what point the writers were trying to make here. If government had never gotten involved in projects there would have been no Hoover Dam or Tennessee Valley Authority or internet. Sometimes government has to solve problems the private world cannot. I’m not sure why encouraging development of better living conditions for people in rural areas is a bad one. Collapse of food security has been shown to be one of the leading causes of political instability in the world. Anything we can do to secure our food chain and keep it running smoothly is a good idea.
Ms. Katz ?responded to my email about this point asked me if I thought these development dollars would be used in a way that actually made things better? And what about the people who specifically move to rural areas to be away from development. I had to admit I was looking at this from an optimistic viewpoint about improving quality of life for rural workers and residents. But if the money is simply going to be used for strip malls and Baby Gaps she has a point. The bill is not clear about HOW the money is to used or for what.
?5. Policy research centers.?Authorizes $5 million annually for grants to politically favored think tanks to do the same type of work as the Congressional Research Service and the Office of Management and Budget.?
So The Heritage Foundation is now against paying private organizations to do jobs that the government could do? What happened? I thought the whole agenda of the conservative movement was to privatize everything. Diane and I disagree about this. I can’t find where the work is “being duplicated” and she says it is. I have asked her for any proof of this and have so far received no reply. Nor did she provide any the first time I provided the opportunity. ? And to be fair she also told me that the “whole agenda” is NOT to “privatize everything” as I said. Would someone please tell Halliburton, Booz Allen, XE, Bush 1, Bush 2, Cheney, Norquist, etc?
?6. Special import quota for upland cotton.?Imposes a trade restriction to ensure that American consumers pay more for the fabric of our lives.?
Full disclosure: ?I am for trade restrictions on ANY slave made goods (including the earlier mentioned iPhones) and am for restrictions for commodities produced under standards lower than the same standard as if the product was created here in the US. For me it is a human rights issue first, an environmental one second and finally about jobs here at home.? I would gladly pay more if more things were ?from? the USA?and most of America agrees with me. ? Ms. Katz says that this isn’t about slave produced cotton that it is about American farmers not wanting competition from Brazil. Brazil where the cotton is still produced by using forced (slave) labor?(page 37.)
Ms. Katz explained to me that she feels like we shouldn’t impose trade restrictions on countries “trying to make their citizens lives better too.” ?But are they? Are they trying to make peoples lives better or simply stealing the labor of their citizens to make themselves rich? At our expense?
?7. Natural Stone Research and Promotion Board.?Creates a quasi-government entity to spend the revenue generated by a new?tax on rocks.?
Stone by its very nature should NOT be part of a Farm and Agriculture Bill. Period. We are in agreement on this easily.
?8. Farmers? Market and Local Food Promotion Program.?Provides $40 million annually to redecorate farmers? market stalls and roadside stands in a manner befitting their yuppie customers.?
Yuppies haven’t been the boogie man, or woman, since 1984. Perhaps Heritage Foundation’s readers are all so old that they hate yuppies but they forget that thirty years ago they were the yuppies.? I hope the writers meant those damn Hipster customers in their skinny jeans, unshaven faces and too many tattoos. They once again play with words in order to manipulate rather than inform. Here they are referring to Section 501 of the bill that is intended to expand access to more Farmers Markets to more people. Hipsters or not, better food to more people, ?it’s a good idea.
Ms. Katz disagrees with me here because she feels the yuppies are middle aged. I think the yuppies are old. So we have agreed to disagree on this. Apparently she thinks hipsters are much less a threat than yuppies. She is wrong.
?9. SNAP Nutrition Education Program.?Budgets a whopping $375 million for 2015 to teach food stamp recipients that candy, soda, and chips do not constitute a well-rounded diet.?
While I have already agreed that Food Stamps should be its own bill it’s not. Since it is not, and since we cannot legislate or control what food companies decide to put in our food (thank you Conservatives), I think it only fair we be allowed to spend a few dollars to combat the BILLIONS spent on advertising poisonous food. This should be part of a different bill and part of a bigger conversation. A conversation that many conservatives refuse to have or participate in which leads to bloated bills like this one being forced upon us. When Diane responded to my questions she said that I was wrong about this, that conservatives simply want to divide the issues into two bills, which I agree with, so that the issues could be “addressed on their own merits.” While I believe she believes this I don’t believe any of the Tea Party or Rand Paul Libertarians would actually do this. They would vote to let the poor starve and then be shocked at the violence they unleashed. ?They would blame the poor for not starving to death quietly in the streets while they fete each other over lobbyist funded buffets.
?10.Weather radio transmitters.?Authorizes $1 million annually for radio equipment that falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Commerce (National Weather Service), not the U.S. Department of Agriculture.?
Are these transmitters being used to save lives of workers in the field from tornadoes? Flash floods? Fires? The one million spent could lead to savings that not only save lives but keep our food supply chain safe and our food affordable. Which leads to stability. So how can you be against this?
?11. Agriculture research and development (also known as the ?No Commodity Left Behind? provision).?Designates research priorities to be specialty crops, sorghum, peanuts, and sugarcane. But what about heirloom tomatoes and organic pineapple??
So first the writers criticize the bill for not having enough to do with agriculture and farming and now have a problem because it does? Since they provide no real criticism of the bill it’s hard to refute their point, or lack of one. Once again Ms. Katz thinks I don’t get her point. She is against government funding science. That scientists should decide what they want to study and that by some mechanism she didn’t explain they get the funding to do so. ?It is easy to be critical when you offer no solutions to your criticism.
?12. National?Sheep Industry Improvement Center.?Subsidizes modern shepherds and herders who evidently need government assistance to market their sheep and goats.?
Same comment as item eleven. This is a farm bill. This is a farm issue. I have no problem with subsidizing domestic producers of any type of food. Once again, secure food leads to a secure society. I have goat tacos frequently and they are good. In addition I eat yogurt from goat milk and it only adds more variety to the food chain. I’m all for supporting this kind of idea in The Farm Bill. Diane accused me of saying there would be “no goat tacos” without government subsidies. That is not the case. What I do think is that by educating people about other types of protein sources you expand the food network. Which increases food security. Which increases national security. Which increase your security.
?13. National Clean Plant Network.?A lot of green?$137.5 million?to promote the use of healthy plants (as opposed to farmers using diseased and pest-ridden ones).?
I think the writers here are simply trying to be funny. The section (403 and 404) is, once again, about long term food security. This is what a farm bill is supposed to do!
?14. Honey Report.?Requires the Department of Agriculture to consider a federal standard?that would inevitably make honey more expensive.?
Once again a food crop covered under the farm bill. I’m outraged!
But they forget to mention that IF standards were adopted and big honey consolidators had to let you know that the bottle of honey you were buying was from all over the world, had been heated to within an inch of it’s life, they had no idea how old it was, etc. You may be for more standards. Which may in fact drive up the price on bulk honey so that local honey producers can survive.
And if you want to know more about why more regulation on honey might be a good idea? Click here.
“15.Olive oil import control.?Imposes import controls on olive oil (to drive up prices).”
Most people don’t think about it this way but olive oil is really olive juice. And like ALL juices it’s better, and better for you, the fresher it is. Not just that but if you looked at the article above about honey then you’ll love this: Click here.? It basically just points out all the ways we are being robbed by not having more control and regulation over this industry.
Maybe some control is necessary so we can stop buying rapeseed oil labeled as EVO?
Diane in her response to ?me asked that I point out that this is not what the regulation is designed to do. That it will simply limit the amount imported. But the side effect of this will be to increase legitimate production of real olive oil. Domestic jobs and better product. Sounds like a good goal for a Farm Bill.
?16. Rural Energy for America Program.?Provides?subsidies?to farmers and rural businesses for ?renewable? energy systems so they, too, can h2ave costly and inefficient energy.?
I’m sure the writers compared the subsidies given to coal and oil before making this claim so they must be correct. However I am certain that we are very close to the solar tipping point where one watt of solar costs the same or less than coal. As we increase the amount of solar and wind units we make those costs may actually BEAT conventional energy IF we take those industries subsidies into account. And even if it is MORE inefficient I would rather have it installed as a back-up to conventional energy in order, once again, to guarantee food security. The bigger question is should this be part of the Farm Bill? Maybe not.? That is the conversation to have, not ?solar is bad? but rather, ?Should we pay for energy projects with farm money??
Ms. Katz confirmed that they did not take into account the subsidies given to coal and oil. She made clear however that she is against subsidies for ANYONE. Period. But those subsidies do exist so we can either mitigate them or never move forward. Nor did she once again address my concern about keeping our food chain secure and flowing.
?17. Community Wood Energy Program.?Grants to state and local governments to return their communities to the good ol? days of burning trees for heat.?
I defer to my last post. These projects should probably be in an energy bill not a farm bill. However this is a biomass project for the generation of heat or electricity and my comments about the last point apply here also. Food security belongs in the Farm Bill.
18. Community?Forest?and Open Space Conservation Program.?Provides grants to communities and Indian tribes to establish local forests (since there wo?uld be none without the federal government).?
Forests preserve farm land. No problem with having forestry related bills combined with farm bills. Trees prevent soil erosion and generally benefit the whole ecosystem we depend on for farming. No problem with this being in this bill.
The writer of the piece thinks that I have missed the point here. That their point isn’t if this should be in the Farm Bill but rather should the Federal Government pay for local and state forests? ?I see the conversation she wants to have but it is not a relevant conversation. If planting trees in Oklahoma will prevent famine in New Jersey then yes I want the trees planted. Extreme example but it illustrates the point that we are all connected and the Farm Bill shows how we are connected.
?19. Christmas tree tax.?Allows the government to collect a new?tax on Christmas trees?for promotion (because otherwise we might forget to buy one for December 25).?
We agree again! Creating a tax to encourage buying Christmas trees is idiotic. This is just a money give away program to somebody’s donors. Besides does anybody want to hear about “The War On Christmas!” All December long?
?20. Price-loss coverage for peanuts.?Guarantees the incomes of peanut farmers, because they have a?very?strong lobby in Washington, D.C.?
This is about not only protecting the food supply chain but, if necessary, we could produce Diesel from peanuts. This is a food security and national security crop. Also peanuts are a food that is high in fat and protein so if famine were to come it could be used to save thousands of lives. As it has in Africa. This is a farm bill after all.
The writer of the Heritage piece pointed out that this was simply a new plan to replace a now defunct plan that used to pay peanut farmers directly. She may be, and is probably, right. But for the reason I mention above I support doing this.
While there are many points I think we liberals and conservatives could agree on and work together on to build a ?more perfect union? I don’t believe we will. Because the modern conservative movement is more about exploiting anarchy and using that vacuum so they can seize ever more wealth and power. Which is all they seem to care about. Power at all and any cost. They seek power for powers sake. Not to be effective. Not to make life better. Power and privilage for them and nothing for you. ?I cannot find common ground with a party whose political ideas are built on an ever shifting foundation of quicksand always up for grabs to the highest bidder. That seems to be modern day political conservatism. ?Should The Heritage Foundation feel free to comment on The Farm Bill? Absolutely. But ?should we ignore that they offer no alternatives? No willingness to discuss growing poverty in America that makes The Farm Bill in reality The Food Stamp Bill? We cannot. The hungry cannot wait. It’s not a great bill. It’s not even a good bill. But it is a bill that must be passed.
Edited/Published by: SB
