Matt Blunt Balances Budget on Backs of Organic Farmers
From Bill McClellan's column in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, we encounter this traumatizing tale of woe begotten by Matt Blunt's starvation budget:
And they weep for the loss of their subsidy. Meanwhile, the state of Missouri continues to face a budget shortfall and cannot afford needed services, much less special programs that make businessmen more profitable.
No one's calling for Matt Blunt's head for the increased cost of their organic bean sprouts yet, but we here at DMB2008 laud the tone he's set in Jefferson City.
Imagine what he could do in Washington, D.C.
DREW KIMMELL IS in the organic pecan business, but he sees well beyond pecans. He sees a revolution in what we eat. The entire food production system is changing, he says. People want safer food, better-tasting food. They want to stay away from chemicals. They want natural. What's more, they're willing to pay for it. The organic food business is booming.Sorry, that's the St. Louis Post-Dispatch leading with the anecdote of the downtrodden. Here's the meat of what's happened:
And just as the organic food movement is taking off, Missouri is dropping its organic certification program.
No big surprise. It's money. The program was going to cost the state $120,000 for the coming fiscal year.To make a long story short, the state of Missouri was running a program to certify organic produce as organic, and it was losing money on the proposition; the costs of processing fees fell short about $110,000 a year. Meanwhile, the people who were using the state of Missouri to add value to their products are making money hand over fist. Suddenly, they're faced with the prospect of having to pay, with their own money, an independent company to certify their products as naturally expensive.
Actually, some of that cost would have been covered by fees. The state charged $100 for certification. Processors also pay for certification. In addition to the 90 farmers, there are 17 processors. Of course, that still comes out to only $10,700. Advocates of the program point out that the farmers are making money and paying taxes, and some of them, especially the ones on smaller farms, wouldn't be doing either without the program.
And they weep for the loss of their subsidy. Meanwhile, the state of Missouri continues to face a budget shortfall and cannot afford needed services, much less special programs that make businessmen more profitable.
No one's calling for Matt Blunt's head for the increased cost of their organic bean sprouts yet, but we here at DMB2008 laud the tone he's set in Jefferson City.
Imagine what he could do in Washington, D.C.
posted by Brian J. at 7:31 PM
2 Comments:
First he went after the organic pecan farmers... and I said nothing.
Who's next, Brian??? WHO'S NEXT?!?!
Love the blog by the way! Posted on it here. When you think of the other options for '08, no one other than Condi would energize me. Blunt on the other hand would be great. I think it will be unlikely given his age....
ARC: St Wendeler
Hi, Drew, thanks for stopping by.
First off, I am going to assume I misinterpreted your parting remark. If I interpreted as though you were telling me to keep my mouth shut and let smarter people tell me what to think about organic farming subsidies, why, I'd probably respond angrily and defensively, and that would lower the level of discourse.
I will grant that I do not have any experience in the organic farming industry, nor do I have experience petitioning the Department of Agriculture for favors. I do, however, have some experience paying taxes and some experience in getting professional certification from a third party, so I do have some authority from which to argue were that my particular favorite logical fallacy. But that's beside the point.
I understand that this particular program does solve a particular business problem for organic farmers. Credibility in the marketplace is tough to come by, particularly in a growth industry such as organic foods where charlatans and hucksters undoubtedly pass chemically-treated foodstuffs as organic. These frauds no doubt have an easier time fooling consumers since the difference between an organic carrot and a regular carrot can be invisible to the naked eye. So I agree that having an independent auditing group of sorts affirm an organic farmer's crop as truly organic yields that needed credibility.
I wouldn't care about the program if it broke even; that is, if organic farmers paid for the complete cost of their certification. But that's not the case; as a taxpayer, I'm paying to solve the organic farmers' credibility business problem. That is, I am picking up a portion of the business expenses of a business I don't own and whose goods I don't consume. Businesses in a lucrative and growing industry, we agree.
Personally, I hold a third party certification that claims I am proficient in computer hardware support. I paid for this out of my own pocket because it benefits me. It doesn't benefit my clients, really, as I'd do the same quality of hardware support without the paper hanging on my wall. It doesn't benefit the general citizen in the state of Missouri except in a diffuse, meaningless abstract way. I'd never expect my neighbors or people in mobile home parks to take up a collection to pay for my certification exam, but that's what happens, indirectly, when the government passes around the hat, with a tight-lipped gangster smile, to certify certain crops as untouched by Roundup.
Regardless of how visionary it would be, the Missouri state government doesn't have the superfluous money nor, honestly, the moral right to take tax money and spend it on services that benefit a few businesses. That's crony capitalism without the need of a true crony. Call it bureacrony capitalism, if you will.
To compare a program such as the organic certification to the University program, one must overlook the obvious distinction that the universities provide benefits for citizens, whereas the organic certification provides a benefit to for-profit companies. Regardless of arguments about future growth, employment, or diffuse economic benefits, governments should not take money from private citizens and corporations to give to the direct benefit of companies or corporations. Otherwise, the temptation grows to spend the people's money on private goods such as subsidies for factories or office parks, new sports facilities, or certifications.
Of course, I don't fault organic farmers for taking the certification, nor of defending its continued existence. However, they suffering as anyone who has taken government assistance does when they've come to depend upon something given, quite arbitrarily, from the state government; because it's there, one comes to expect it to remain there forever, and if it's cut, the cut hurts the organic farmers acutely.
Post a Comment
<< Home