Our View - Tuesday

Hog heaven

This is what happens when panhandlers carry pitchforks

Remember the Soviet Union’s “five year plans,” which we Westerners ridiculed as representing the worst sort of top-down, command-and-control economic planning? We have something similar in the United States. It’s called a Farm Bill.

Despite a veto threat from President Bush, the House of Representatives on Friday approved a five-year, $286 billion farm bill that Soviet planners would be proud of. Colorado’s Democrats all voted for the bill; Republicans (including Rep. Doug Lamborn) voted against it. Enough Republicans opposed it that a veto can’t be overridden, which we hope will make senators take a more fiscally responsible tack.

Despite a lot of talk about the need to wean farmers from dependence on federal handouts, the measure maintains current subsidy levels to growers of corn, wheat, barley, oats, cotton, sugar, etc., but for the first time extends subsidies to socalled specialty crops, including fruits, nuts and vegetables. Although specialty crop farmers get only $1.6 billion initially, one can expect that number to climb over time. Corn prices are at near-record highs, due largely to government ethanol mandates, yet Congress couldn’t even muster the will to cut off corn growers, despite the windfall they’re reaping.

The Department of Agriculture continues to drift far from its down-on-the-farm roots, as this bill shows. Roughly 12 percent of the money goes to farm subsidies. But more than 62 percent will be spent on food stamps and nutritional programs.

Another 12 percent goes to rural development (including an initiative to expand broadband in the farm belt) and energy-related matters — it requires taxpayers to further underwrite the biofuels industry, for instance, despite mounting concerns about the environmental and economic impacts this manipulation of energy markets will have. The rest, roughly 9 percent, pays farmers not to farm — to leave their fields fallow in the name of “conservation” or wetlands protection.

This is as much an environmental protection bill and energy bill as a “farm” bill — which has us thinking: Why not just do away with the Agriculture Department and hand off these functions to the Energy Department, Health and Human Services or the Environmental Protection Agency?

The special interests that stand to benefit most — including the Renewable Fuels Association, American Farm Bureau Federation, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, National Farmers Union, National Corn Growers Association, American Soybean Association, National Pork Producers Council and National Association of Wheat Growers — all give the bill rave reviews. Farm state legislators mostly complained that the handouts aren’t generous enough.

And what of the people who have to pay for all this? Forgotten as usual.

In true Soviet style, the bill even gets into a little redistribution of wealth, by slapping $7.8 billion in new taxes on foreign companies operating in the U.S. The proceeds will help pay for a boost in food stamp spending. The hikes weren’t in the bill approved by the House Agriculture Committee, but were hurriedly tacked on by the Rules Committee before the bill hit the floor. The tactic angered Republicans who might otherwise have supported the bill, such as Colorado Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, who accused Democrats of “hijacking” the bill by slipping in a “stealthy new tax.” It’s too bad this supposedly conservative Republican isn’t as offended by all the handouts.

The only modest concession Congress made to taxpayers was a provision that cuts off subsidies to farmers making more than $1 million a year in income. And, oh yes, Congress has asked the Agriculture Department to explain why it sent $1.1 billion in farm payments to more than 170,000 dead people over a seven-year period. But that’s where “reform” ends.

Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns reiterated the administration’s opposition to some elements of the bill, including the tax increase and the refusal to reduce subsidies. “I urge the Senate to chart a different course,” he said.

We also hope for a dramatically different approach when the Senate takes up its bill. But don’t bet the farm on it.

Dangerous frontier

Last week’s deadly explosion at the Mojave Desert test facility of Scaled Composites, a company pioneering the private exploration of space, is a reminder — for those who need it — that sending humans into orbit isn’t an easy or risk-free endeavor, whether it’s undertaken by the private or the public sector. But we doubt it will set the effort back for long. NASA has suffered its share of mishaps and fatal tragedies — and this is to be expected as private companies also push the envelope in pursuit of “space tourism,” the first commercial space plane and other exciting ventures.

Scaled Composites’ Burt Rutan designed and built Space-ShipOne, which made history in 2004 when it became the first private manned rocket to reach orbit, claiming an X Prize. Rutan is partnering with Virgin Galactic owner Richard Branson to build a fleet of commercial space vehicles.

“The accident occurred during a test of the flow of nitrous oxide through an injector in the course of testing propellant system components for a new rocket motor for SpaceShipTwo,” according to a wire report. Tragically, three people were killed and three were injured in the blast.

“What we do is inherently risky," said Stuart Witt, general manager of the Mojave Air and Space Port, where a number of space startups operate. “These are not the days we look forward to, but we deal with it.”

That’s the pioneering spirit and dedication to mission that will help ensure that the new space race continues.