December 29, 2003
Pork by any other name
Several Democratic candidates have come out demanding federal money for the beef industry in the wake of the mad cow case. This is exactly the sort of attitude that prevents me from being a member of the Democractic party (not that the Republicans are any better). The instant anything major happens, the reaction is to throw money at it. Particularly if it will influence voters while not actually being a smart thing to do, or if it involves kickbacks to major contributors.
The beef industry is a huge, and hugely profitable, industry. I was under the impression that the US supports free enterprise, which include businesses and industries taking the hits when things don't go well. What corporations seem to want (and what politicians are far too eager to provide) is for the government to leave them the hell alone and stay out of their business when things are going well (which extends to not wanting to have to pay any taxes at all) and for the government to hold the bag when things go pear shaped.
The beef industry already receives far more federal largesse than they should, and now these guys want to give them more? More money to oversee safety regulations that the industry fought against tooth and nail? More money to help them in the PR efforts to spin their product as safe whether it's true or not? That doesn't encourage me to consider voting for any of the candidates who are promoting this ridiculous idea.
Posted by rev_matt_y at December 29, 2003 04:03 PMThe FDA is a prime example of the kind of government agency the people of America need and should adequately provide for. However, since its mission is public protection, but is controlled by politicians, guess which has a higher priority?
In my family we purchase about 15 to 20 lbs. of beef per year for the three of us. This includes restaurants. Aside from the fact that it just isn’t a very healthy protein source, nor, inexpensive, I mostly avoid it because of the almost free ride ranchers get from tax payers via grazing rights to BLM land which belongs to the people, but is fenced off, not only keeping cattle in, but the public out of their own land in many cases.
The political argument of course that it is industry, and that means jobs, so anytime we give tax payers money to corporations, or give them tax breaks, we are really helping the public by preserving jobs. Yeah, right! And they refer to our system as “free enterprise”. It’s free alright, for a few, and getting damned expensive for the rest of us facing 7 to 10 Trillion dollars of national debt.
Posted by: David R Remer at December 29, 2003 04:46 PMI suppose this is just another blatant example of socializing loss and privatizing gain.
Posted by: Vague at January 3, 2004 12:45 PMI just can’t escape the fact that my pension and social security income, and my daughter’s first working years income, will pay the taxes needed to service that 10 Trillion dollars of debt, not to mention pay down that debt. That is of course, if the pension plan is still solvent, and the government can avoid defaulting on its contract regarding the SS funds it took from my checks all my life.
It is so ironic that so many politicians talk about lowering taxes while raising the national debt. Because that debt is very simply a tax increase deferred to another administration and the people governed by it.
Posted by: David R. Remer at January 3, 2004 02:16 PM
