Yes, Congressman, I Do Have a Problem With That
by
Robert Higgs
by Robert Higgs
DIGG THIS
Ho-hum. Members
of Congress are busying themselves with their usual dishonest tricks,
looting the taxpayers and proudly taking credit for their crimes.
According
to USA Today ("Farm
Aid Plumps Up Iraq Funding," March 22), House Democrats have
loaded the emergency-spending bill for the Iraq war―a crime
in its own right―with $3.7 billion in benefits for farm interests
that support Democrats. In the minds of these devoted public servants,
"supporting the troops" furnishes an apt occasion for enriching
peanut, spinach, and milk producers, among others.
Rep. Sanford
Bishop (D-Ga.), who proudly calls himself "the peanut congressman,"
makes no apologies for allocating $74 million of the taxpayer's
money to the glorious cause of paying storage fees for peanut growers.
This largess constitutes a suitable payoff, it seems, for the reported
$35,750 that peanut interests contributed to Bishop's last campaign.
Likewise,
Rep. Sam Farr (D-Calif.) does not hang his head when called to account
for the $25 million in taxpayer dollars he helped direct to spinach
growers "to offset losses from last fall's E. coli contamination."
After all, how were those spinach farmers to know that crops sometimes
become contaminated with germs―you don't think that sort of
thing has ever happened before, do you? Surely the reported $30,600
that Rep. Farr received from spinach interests in his last campaign
had nothing to do with his actions in committee. The suggestion
that he is a special-interest prostitute is impolite, however true
it might be.
House appropriations
committee chairman David Obey (D-Wisc.) understands instinctively
that the United States can't win the war in Iraq without a solid
phalanx of milk producers to back up the troops. This tactical concern
probably explains the reported $252 million for additional milk
subsidies that somehow found its way into the bill Obey's committee
brought forth. Any intimation that the congressman is a mere highwayman
for the milk interests would be rude, except that Obey himself affirms
its truth without shame. "I represent dairy farmers," he declares.
"You got a problem with that?"
"Every
time there is a disaster on the farming front, the federal government
provides assistance," Obey declares. "This is no different than
what's been done for the last 50 years." Think about that statement.
For fifty years running―actually, it's closer to ninety, in
one way or another―members of Congress have been extorting
money from citizens on pain of fines and imprisonment in order to
enrich farmers who've never learned that farming is risky. Mythology
apart, when it comes to actually bearing the risk, the farmer's
slogan has long been "better you than me, pal," and the agribusiness
lackeys in Congress make sure that not a blade of wheat wilts without
eliciting generous taxpayer compensation.
So, for
a mere $113,000 reportedly directed to Rep. Obey by the milk interests
since 1989, the agro-bandits get back this year alone a handsome
return of $252 million, not to mention the other stupendous amounts
of booty they've raked in from time immemorial. You and I can only
dream of investments that return such gorgeous profits. Scientific,
technological, and economic innovation be damned, I say. If we really
want to get rich with no risk at all, we must invest in a congressman
or two.
Punctilious
observers may protest that the Constitution gives Congress no power
to take my money and give it to farmer Jones. Unfortunately, the
wise men of the Supreme Court have sensed emanations and penumbras
of pesticide, herbicide, and livestock dung hovering above the sacred
document. In decisions such as Wickard
v. Filburn (317 U.S. 111 [1942]), the mandarins in black
robes have placed their stamp of approval on transparent piracy,
justifying it with some of the most palpably sophistical pseudo-rationalizations
ever written down. This disgraceful judicial "reasoning" really
must be seen to be believed. Don't take my word for it; look it
up.
The whole
government gang―legislative, executive, and judicial―is
clearly in on the crime, so the criminals themselves have nothing
to fear from the powers that be. Indeed, the criminals and the powers
are one and the same.
Which
makes you and me what? Accessories to a crime, for electing these
criminals? Chumps, for supinely putting up with what they do? Too
busy with work, daily life, and family problems to notice that a
large amount of our earnings is being deducted for such disgusting
"public" purposes as taking from Peter and giving to Paul―a
Paul who has no more right to the money than a dark-alley mugger?
To
me, the matter seems all too plain: I've been robbed, you've been
robbed, and the robbers remain cheerfully on the loose.
March
24, 2007
Robert
Higgs [send him mail] is
senior fellow in political economy at the Independent
Institute and editor of The
Independent Review. His most recent book is Depression,
War, and Cold War: Studies in Political Economy. He is also
the author of Resurgence
of the Warfare State: The Crisis Since 9/11 and Against
Leviathan.
Copyright
© 2007 LewRockwell.com
Robert
Higgs Archives
|