The Role Of Government – Are There Limits Anymore?
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
This past week when I took the Dodge vehicle I drive in for service I was given a handout by the technician letting me know of all the support American auto makers had given following the attack of terrorist on September 11th. As I waited for the service I read through the multi-page, photo-copy of the comparative report on what U.S. auto companies did and what foreign auto makers didn’t do.
I understood that this appeal was intended to make me feel better about the nationalization of the car companies that we as Americans now have contributed to – whether we wanted to…or not.
Have we reached a tipping point where our Congressionally-approved, multi-Billion dollar bail-outs have gotten to a level where going farther will be viewed as too much?
Beyond deciding who should fill key company leadership positions, are there other operational questions that must pass muster with the folks at the White House?
Before agricultural producers get too self-righteous about the handouts going to banks, insurance companies, auto companies, executive bonuses, etc. – we might want to re-examine the financial records of our enterprises to see those entries of income that have come from federal sources. We might also want to take into perspective those regulations that we’d rather not have to deal with as other side of the same coins.
When President Obama suggested in his State of the Union Speech that he thought there ought to be limits on just how much program payments any one agricultural producer should receive, he wasn’t thinking about “limiting” government intrusion into farming or ranching business ventures – just the amount of cash Uncle Sam would provide on an individual basis. The proposal was part of the continuing theme of distinguishing a difference of class and who should be eligible for our public appreciation – and who is above the magic figure of $250,000, thereby worthy of our public distain.
From the signals coming from Washington, D.C. it would seem that the guardians of agricultural payments in Congress have held their ground and we won’t have to worry, in the short-term anyway, that our national food security won’t be endangered by a substantial cut in how much any producer is eligible to get. It might have been interesting though to see what consequences a reduction to the $250,000 mark might have accomplished.
Perhaps the new limitation might have brought about a realization of the dependability of political revenue and stimulated thinking on re-considering if participation in government programs was worth the trouble. For the time being we won’t know or have to think about that particular point.
Is there or could there be a different place where we go to participate in a conversation about meaningful limits to government – or has that possibility completely passed us by?
This past week when I took the Dodge vehicle I drive in for service I was given a handout by the technician letting me know of all the support American auto makers had given following the attack of terrorist on September 11th. As I waited for the service I read through the multi-page, photo-copy of the comparative report on what U.S. auto companies did and what foreign auto makers didn’t do.
I understood that this appeal was intended to make me feel better about the nationalization of the car companies that we as Americans now have contributed to – whether we wanted to…or not.
Have we reached a tipping point where our Congressionally-approved, multi-Billion dollar bail-outs have gotten to a level where going farther will be viewed as too much?
Beyond deciding who should fill key company leadership positions, are there other operational questions that must pass muster with the folks at the White House?
Before agricultural producers get too self-righteous about the handouts going to banks, insurance companies, auto companies, executive bonuses, etc. – we might want to re-examine the financial records of our enterprises to see those entries of income that have come from federal sources. We might also want to take into perspective those regulations that we’d rather not have to deal with as other side of the same coins.
When President Obama suggested in his State of the Union Speech that he thought there ought to be limits on just how much program payments any one agricultural producer should receive, he wasn’t thinking about “limiting” government intrusion into farming or ranching business ventures – just the amount of cash Uncle Sam would provide on an individual basis. The proposal was part of the continuing theme of distinguishing a difference of class and who should be eligible for our public appreciation – and who is above the magic figure of $250,000, thereby worthy of our public distain.
From the signals coming from Washington, D.C. it would seem that the guardians of agricultural payments in Congress have held their ground and we won’t have to worry, in the short-term anyway, that our national food security won’t be endangered by a substantial cut in how much any producer is eligible to get. It might have been interesting though to see what consequences a reduction to the $250,000 mark might have accomplished.
Perhaps the new limitation might have brought about a realization of the dependability of political revenue and stimulated thinking on re-considering if participation in government programs was worth the trouble. For the time being we won’t know or have to think about that particular point.
Is there or could there be a different place where we go to participate in a conversation about meaningful limits to government – or has that possibility completely passed us by?
Posted by Doug Busselman at 4/11/2009 6:44 AM 
Categories: Agriculture
Tags: Government Payments Farm Programs
Categories: Agriculture
Tags: Government Payments Farm Programs
Comments