<font color=red>"You are wrong in your assumption that farmers want bigger govt."</font color=red>
Richard
I am on your side in that I do not think farmers want more government, at least in theory. BUT, I have attended polictical rallies and talked to "conservative" politicians running for statewide rallies. While I am sure most farmers would not vote for expansion of government in other areas, they are VERY interested in how new legislation affects their government subsidies. The Demos had one very effective weapon to counter the "contract with America". When tax reductions and smaller government became popular, the Demos countered with threats that the revolution would reduce or end the educational loan program. Boy, did this take the wind out of the sails of the middle class. In my opinion, that tactic was very effective in ending the Republican revolution in the house.
You and I know those subsidies tie the farmers to governement like an adict to his pusher.
You mentioned ending the subsidies and I agree. But its quite easy to simply say "let the chips fall where they may" I am afraid the fall out of those chips would destroy most family farmers.
What the Ag companies spend spreading around bribes, oops I meant campaign contributions, around D.C. would make Enron seem like a peon.
Never in history has a society peacefully reduced entitlements to its population peacefully and I am afraid doing so in the U.S.A. will be hard-pressed to do so.
The only hope would be a structured program of perhaps a decade to end the subsidies. I would take great political will and long range planning. Qualities we Americans seldom demonstrate. Any program to do so would have to confront the lock on markets the large AG companies currently enjoy.
I personally believe these subsidies to all segments of our society are the greatest threat to our long range survival of our Constitution and Freedoms.
