Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

market-farming - Re: [Market-farming] OT Thought Provoking (or maybe justprovoking:)

market-farming AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Market Farming

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Jill Taylor Bussiere" <jdt AT itol.com>
  • To: <market-farming AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [Market-farming] OT Thought Provoking (or maybe justprovoking:)
  • Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 13:59:20 -0600

>
> I really do not accept the idea that most legislators are corrupt. There
may
> be certain practices that go on at times, but like you say, once you have
a
> law in place, it then depends upon the climate. We see this with many
other
> laws that are either not enforced, or more likely, selectively enforced,
> which is standard police practice. If you arrested people for the
slightest
> infraction of rules and laws of which there are tens of thousands, all of
us
> would be in jail. As they say, "ignorance of the law is no excuse," but I
do
> not support that kind of thinking. Our society is on total overload on all
> the possible rules infractions that can be broken on a minute by minute
> basis.

Rick,
Of course you are entitled to believe what you want.
>
> And I will stress again, that there can be a serious chilling effect when
> you have laws upon laws upon rules upon rules. This can be used at great
> advantage to punish those who you want to "get," while most people get
away
> with it. A perfect example right now is to apprehend and punish all the
> people who have purchased products through mail order and have not paid
the
> sales taxes due. That is likely to include most people:) But they are now
> singling out certain people in Wisconsin for this "honor."

I pay my sales tax from mail order purchases. But I am not talking about
laws upon laws upon rules - that is your layer you have put upon it. I am
talking about practices of integrity in the use of public funds - not for
party politics, but to get done the business of the state.

Same with pay for play - the general welfare of the people of the
state/country should be what legislators are charged with, not raising
campaign funds in return for favors to particular entities.

> > The Democrat is indeed arrogant, and slimey, in my opinion - wanting
power
> > over all else. The Democratic illegal practices seem to be more
> > concentrated in him. The Republicans, however, spread their illegal
> > practices throughout their legislators. Read the Carey email memo to
get
> > just an idea of how pervasive the use of publicly paid staff for
> > campaigning
> > was. And this is only one memo!!!
> > http://wispolitics.com/freeser/features/Scandal/RACC%2097/Carey.memo.pdf
>
> I have to honest with you. I read the memo and would never have suspected
> that anything in the memo could possibly point to any wrongdoing. Maybe
some
> of the rules are a bit much. I know that it is even illegal to call
someone
> that is related to campaigning from your own legislative office. When I
> first heard that, it seemed impossible that we had gotten that extreme on
> what is an illegal activity, but apparently they feel that there are
abuses
> by doing it ... phone use? I am not quite so draconian as that and
consider
> myself a liberal on such issues.

Perhaps if you don't see any wrongdoing in the memo, it is because you don't
realize that the people mentioned are full time legislative staffers while
they are performing full time campaigning for a particular party - in this
case the Republican party.
We are not talking about a phone call or two - we are talking about full
time work on campaigns from publicly paid legislators' staffers, for 7
months of the year. This is a bit more than a phone call or two, is clearly
illegal, and is a misuse of public funds. This isn't my interpretation - it
is pretty common knowledge among those who are looking into it. Many
currently elected legislators have been elected with such "help". You can
choose to believe it or not - that doesn't change the reality of it.
Whether we want to prosecute everyone involved or not is another discussion,
but we are not talking about a phone call or two.

The rest later when time allows.
Jill

> What I am concerned about though, was what is alleged with the Democrats'
> actual shake-down of people for money for doing favors and voting a
certain
> way on a bill. Now that is clearly illegal and needs to be dealt with ...
if
> it is true or can be proved in a court of law. We will have to wait for
that
> to transpire.
>
> > It is not the level playing field that I disagree with, it is
> > that offering
> > money to the larger farms which have much greater environmental
> > impacts is a
> > way to encourage their existence - this is environmentally
> > destructive, and
> > also destructive to a healthy economy.
>
> Here is my take on this and the majority view of farmers in the U.S.: The
> largest farms produce most all of the food and fiber in the U.S. They are
> under a microscope that is not present on small farms. They should not be
> penalized for being large unless largeness by itself is damaging to the
> environement. The truth is that they are often less damaging to the
> environement. They are not permitted the liberties of the small farms
> practices that are causing degradation to the environment. I am speaking
> from actual on-site personal knowledge here. Not some theory. You would
> NEVER see a large farm get away with some of the run off into creeks that
is
> very common in our area on a daily basis. The combined run off is
staggering
> in some communities.
>
> There have been some high profile cases with the large farms which always
> seem to deal with one issue ... lagoon overflow. With the CAFO
requirements,
> the large farms have to meet stringent manure management plans. And they
are
> not always easy to meet. The small and medium size farms do NOT have to
meet
> these same requirements. Do those farms do improper management of
nutrients?
> Yes, it is very common. But even they will eventually have to meet similar
> requirements. Right now it is NOT a level playing field as the large farms
> have to meet the standard, the other farms do not. Should EQIP money be
> withheld from the large farms? No. Would the small farms be a lot better
off
> in the long term to not have EQIP funding in the first place? Yes without
a
> doubt. But guess what ... the small farmers pushed hard, very hard, for a
> requirement that if NMP's are put in place, then the funding had to
> primarily come from the government. So it is no surprise that is what we
now
> have. There is no political will to change this. Go out and actually talk
to
> some farmers and you will know what I am talking about.
>
> Whether you have one large farm with a nutrient management plan or 20
small
> farms with similar plans, the net effect to the environment is the same.
The
> difference in economy of scale though is obvious. It simply is going to
cost
> a LOT more money to do 20 small plans rather than one large one. So in
that
> respect the NMP's for large farms are likely to be of lower cost per unit
of
> food and fiber produced. Again, benefitting the larger units of
production.
>
> > You and I have a basic
> > disagreement
> > about the health of our current food system - to people and to
> > the earth and
> > to the economy, so it is understandable that we would differ about this
as
> > well. The world I envision is one where people farm with the
> > health of the
> > earth and those who eat their products in mind. Where people are
> > encouraged
> > to farm in such ways, and continue to do so on their own as soon as
> > possible.
>
> Historically, many practices that were done by farms (of any size) were
not
> always wise, e.g., no conservation tillage, manure management of closer-in
> gets more fertility than outlying fields, short term desperation over long
> term sustainablity. By the use of education in our land grant system, and
> later on, subsidies for doing certain practices, we have greatly changed
the
> way things were done. Farmers farm because of historical acceptance of
doing
> practices, and because of the need to survive in the short term.
>
> > Subsidies would be to transition, educate, etc - to such
> > practices -because it is of benefit to us all. Then they would
> > be dropped,
> > unless they were of benefit to the greater good.
>
> For the most part, that is what you have now. If we did not have
subsidies,
> there would be an impact on farms. The most significant impact on farms
> would be the lowering of the entry cost for new farmers. Land prices would
> decline without the subsidy programs. Agricultural commodities would
likely
> increase slightly in price which would be a concern to most politicians,
> including those in the cities. Many farmers who have worked their lives to
> at least have a substantial gain on the farm real estate would lose their
> retirement cushion.
>
> > Now, farming practices
> > that are unhealthy to people and to the earth are subsidized.
>
> What are these farming practices that you refer to as being unhealthy to
> people and the earth?
>
> > At this point, the subsidies have not been a benefit for the smaller
> > arms - milk purchasers have already incorporated the subsidies
> > into their
> > mental figuring of what they will pay for the milk, and as a result
have
> > paid less, figuring that the subsidies will fill in the gap. So that
the
> > subsidies have not worked in the way that those that believe in them had
> > hoped.
>
> Here, I have to disagree with you. This is not how economics works. Rather
> what is actually happening is that additional product can now be produced
> that otherwise would not have been produced (because of more farmers
> discontinuing production due to not being able to compete in the market).
We
> all know what happens when only a "slight" surplus occurs. The price goes
> down. It has absolutely nothing to do what the buyers of the product will
or
> will not pay. They always try to buy at the lowest possible price (they
> would love it for free wouldn't they:), and the seller is always trying to
> sell at the highest possible price that still allows them to clear the
> inventory.
>
> Subsidies allow more of the marginal producers to stay in the market who
> would otherwise leave the market. This is well known. It is also well
known
> that subsidies will lead to lower prices. That is partly why you get
support
> for many of the farm programs by city legislators. You would never have
> enough legislators from just the farm areas to sell such ideas.
>
> > Indeed you will not please everyone. We agree once again.
> > However, I would
> > like to see a society where democratic dialogue is encouraged -
> > in that way
> > we can hope to attain a democratic compromise.
>
> And that is why we have in the U.S. It is how the system works and while
it
> can almost never satisfy those on the margins, it can satisfy the great
> majority in the middle.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Rick Williams
>
> _______________________________________________
> Market-farming mailing list
> Market-farming AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/market-farming
>
> Get the list FAQ at: http://www.marketfarming.net/mflistfaq.htm
>






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page